GIFT  OF 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 


COMPILED  BY 


COMMITTEE  OF  THE  CENTRAL  CONFERENCE 
OF  AMERICAN  RABBIS 


s^fiySpS^ 


1905 


THE  FRIEDENWALD  CO. 

BALTIMORE,    MD. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 


COMPILED   BY 


COMMITTEE  OF  THE  CENTRAL  CONFERENCE 
OF  AMERICAN  RABBIS 


1905 

Q^afrimore  (pvt 

THE  FRIEDENWALD  CO. 

BALTIMORE,    MD. 


• 


.V 


BALTIMORE,  MD.,  U.  S.  A. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface    3 

Preamble  adopted  for  the  Establishment  of  the  Union  of  the  Israelites  of 

America  (July  12,  1841 ) 5 

Leeser  (1845)    6 

Appeal  of  Berlin  Genossenschaft  (1845)  7 

Samuel  Holdheim's  Comment  on  above  Appeal 7 

S.  Stern  on  above  Appeal   ( 1845)    8 

M.  Hess  (1845)    10 

Address  by  Breslau  Genossenschaft  (1846)   10 

The  Friends  of  Reform  at  Worms  ( 1848)   1 1 

Call  for  a  Synod  (1848) 12 

Ludwig  Philippson's  Plan  of  a  General  German  Synod  (1848)    13 

L.  Philippson's  Additional  Remarks  ( 1848)    15 

Isaac  M.  Wise's  Call  (1848) 19 

L.  Philippson   ( 1849)    23 

Call  for  Synod  to  the  Jewish  Religious  Communities  of  Germany  ( 1849)  . .  25 

I.  M.  Wise  (1856) 32 

B.  Felsenthal  (1856)   34 

Protest  of  Har  Sinai  Congregation,  Baltimore,  against  Cleveland  Confer- 
ence  (1855)    35 

Leopold  Stein  ( 1856) 35 

I.  M.  Wise  (1857) 35 

S.  Holdheim  (1857)    : 36 

Zacharias  Frankel  (1857) 38 

A.  Geiger  (1865) 39 

Alliance  Israelite  on  Synod  ( 1867)    40 

Resolution  of  Cassel  Conference  ( 1868)    41 

From  Minutes  of  Cassel  Rabbinical  Conference  (1868)   41 

A.  Geiger  (1868)    42 

Jewish  Chronicle  ( 1868)    , 44 

Editorial  in  Occident  (1868)  49 

321396 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Invitation  to  Synod  by  Adler,  Philippson,  and  Aub  (1869) 52 

Jewish  Chronicle  on  Synod  ( 1869)    55 

L.   Philippson   (1869)    56 

B.  Wechsler   (1870)    57 

M.  Lazarus   ( 1871 )    59 

E.  G.  Hirsch  (1880)   64 

E.  G.  Hirsch  (1881)   65 

I.  M.  Wise  (1881)   66 

J.  K.  Gutbeim  (1881)   72 

Samuel  Hirsch  ( 1881 )    73 

K.  Kohler   (1882)    74 

The  Jewish  Synod.     A  Paper  by  Dr.  H.  G.  Enelow  (1900)  75 

From  Dr.  Silverman's  Presidential  Message  (Detroit,  1903)    104 

Dr.  Jacob  Voorsanger  ( 1903)    105 

Dr.  M.  Margolis  (1903)    107 

From  Dr.  Krauskopf's  Presidential  Message  (Louisville,  1904) 108 

Report  of  the  Committee  on  Synod  (Louisville,  1904) in 

Majority  Report  on  Synod  (Louisville,  1904)    121 

Minority  Report  on  Synod  (Louisville,  1904)    122 

Some  Jewish  Questions.     Paper  by  Dr.  B.  Felsenthal  (Louisville,  1904) . .  123 

Rabbi  Max  Heller  ( 1904)   131 

Dr.  S.  Schechter's  Views  ( 1905)    134 

D.  W.  Amram's  Reply  ( 1905)    143 

Alfred  M.  Cohen's  Reply  (1905)    145 

Morris  M.  Cohn's  Reply  ( 1905)   155 

S.  S.  Riser's  Reply  (1905)    156 

Ephraim  Lederer's  Reply  ( 1905)    158 

M.  A.  Marks'  Reply  ( 1905)   159 

Jacob  H.  Schiff 's  Reply   ( 1905) 159 

H.  Weinstock's  Reply  ( 1905)    .  160 


PREFACE 

At  the  meeting  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis, 
held  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  in  June,  1904,  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  suggestion  in  the  president's  report  to  convene  a  Synod 
presented  a  majority  and  minority  report.  Because  of  the  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  the  committee  and  among  the  members  of  the 
conference  at  large  the  signers  of  the  majority  report  recommended 
that  the  executive  committee  be  instructed  to  issue  a  pamphlet  con- 
taining opinions  pro  and  con  on  the  subject,  this  pamphlet  to  be 
distributed  among  the  people  with  the  purpose  of  forming  and 
educating  public  opinion  on  this  vital  question.  The  executive  com- 
mittee entrusted  the  preparation  of  the  pamphlet  to  a  committee 
consisting  of  David  Philipson,  chairman ;  H.  G.  Enelow,  Morris  M. 
Feuerlicht,  Adolf  Guttmacher,  and  Wm.  Rosenau.  The  committee 
has  compiled  opinions  on  the  Synod  voiced  by  leaders  of  Jewish 
thought  during  the  past  sixty  years.  The  committee  has  attempted 
to  maintain  a  purely  objective  attitude  and  has  included  opinions 
favorable  and  unfavorable  to  the  project.  It  has  carefully  excluded, 
as  far  as  possible,  all  articles  of  a  personal  nature  and  also  those  of  a 
purely  polemical  abusive  character.  The  material  has  been  drawn 
for  the  most  part  from  the  files  of  Jewish  newspapers  and  magazines. 
The  committee  has  not  aimed  to  reproduce  everything  that  has  been 
published  on  this  theme,  but  merely  to  present  a  number  of  state- 
ments which,  in  its  judgment,  discuss  the  subject  from  various  points 
of  view. 

The  committee  is  indebted  to  Dr.  E.  Schreiber,  of  Chicago,  for 
having  placed  at  its  disposal  some  material  in  his  possession ;  the 
articles  which  he  has  compiled  and  translated  are  subscribed  with 
his  initial. 

In  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  the  Conference  the  papers 
and  reports  read  at  its  meetings  touching  the  subject  of  the  Synod 
have  been  included.  The  committee  hopes  that  this  compilation 
may  aid  those  who  read  and  study  these  opinions  to  come  to  a  clear 
decision  and  conclusion  as  to  the  advisability  or  non-advisability 
of  forming  a  Synod  as  the  representative  Jewish  organization; 


4  PREFACE 

notably  the  members  of  the  Conference  who  are  to  decide  upon  this 
all-important  question  at  the  coming  session  in  Cleveland,  the  city- in 
which  the  famous  Conference  was  held  fifty  years  ago,  at  which  the 
Synod  question  was  discussed  for  the  first  time  in  a  gathering  of 
Jewish  notables  in  this  country. 

The  following  circular  letter  was  sent  to  a  number  of  laymen 
throughout  the  country  by  the  committee.  The  answers  received 
are  given  in  this  publication. 

November  23,  1904. 

Dear  Sir:  You  are  aware,  no  doubt,  that  at  its  last  convention  in 
Louisville,  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  discussed 
the  advisability  and  feasibility  of  establishing  a  Jewish  Synod  in  this 
country.  The  Conference  realizes  that  even  were  such  an  institu- 
tion to  be  established,  it  would  be  worthless  unless  it  responded  to 
the  needs  and  the  will  of  the  people.  For  that  reason,  a  committee 
has  been  appointed,  to  publish  a  pamphlet  on  the  question,  and  to 
distribute  it  broadcast  for  the  general  enlightenment  of  those  in 
whose  behalf  the  Synod  shall,  or  shall  not  be  organized. 

In  addition  to  some  historical  literature  and  the  reports  and  papers 
presented  before  the  Conference,  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  committee 
to  publish,  in  a  pamphlet,  the  opinions  of  some  eminent  Jewish 
laymen,  on  the  subject.  We  take  the  liberty  of  asking  you,  as  a 
representative  Jew,  to  favor  us  with  a  statement  of  your  position  in 
this  matter. 

As  we  know  that  the  plan  of  the  Synod  is  but  partly  understood 
by  the  people,  and  has  often  been  misrepresented,  we  mail  you  under 
separate  cover,  the  Conference  reports  on  the  subject,  and  we  hope 
that  you  will  be  so  kind  as  to  read  them  carefully,  and  consider  them 
in  the  expression  of  your  view. 

It  is  needless  to  say,  that  the  committee  addresses  this  request  to 
you,  because  it  believes  you  to  be  interested  in  the  welfare  of  Juda- 
ism, and  is  confident  that  your  opinion,  whatever  it  be,  will  be 
worthy  of  the  attention  and  respect  of  all  those  interested  in  this 
important  movement. 

Sincerely  yours, 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

1841. 

PREAMBLE  ADOPTED  FOR  THE  ESTABLISHMENT  OF  A  UNION 
OF  THE  ISRAELITES  OF  AMERICA,  JULY   12,   1841. 

The  Israelites  of  Philadelphia,  in  common  .with  their  brethren  in 
other  places  in  America,  have  long  since  been  alive  to  the  many  evils 
under  which  they  labor  in  the  great  downfall  of  religious  observance 
and  the  want  of  proper  religious  education  among  them.  But,  deem- 
ing it  their  duty  to  leave  no  means  untried  to  counteract  the  deplor- 
able state  of  want  of  proper  observance,  and  to  promote  a  due 
knowledge  of  the  blessed  religion  they  have  received  from  their 
fathers,  they  have  resolved  to  propose  a  union  of  all  Israelites  resid- 
ing in  America,  to  effect  by  a  common  and  united  effort,  that  which 
would  evidently  be  beyond  the  power  of  accomplishing  by  any  one 
of  the  small  congregations  in  which  the  Israelites  of  this  country  are 
divided.  They,  therefore,  offer  the  following  suggestions,  which 
they  hope  will  forward  greatly  the  desired  result ;  in,  first,  establish- 
ing a  competent  ecclesiastical  authority,  agreeably  to  the  injunction 
of  the  law  in  Deut.  xvi :  18,  "  Judges  and  officers  shalt  thou  appoint 
for  thyself  in  all  thy  gates,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee 
throughout  thy  tribes  " ;  secondly,  by  establishing  schools  for  general 
and  religious  education  under  Jewish  superintendence,  as  com- 
manded in  Deut.  vi :  7,  "  And  thou  shalt  teach  them  diligently  to  thy 
children  " ;  thirdly,  by  promoting  harmony  and  a  concert  of  action 
among  all  their  brethren  scattered  over  the  western  hemisphere,  in 
accordance  with  the  lofty  aspiration  of  the  Psalmist  who  says 
(cxxxiii :  i)  :  "  Behold,  how  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  breth- 
ren to  dwell  together  in  unity."  With  these  views  the  committee 
recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following  rules  and  regulations  for 
the  government  and  action  of  the  Israelites  of  America.  • 

[See  The  Occident,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  176.] 


6  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

LEESER,  1845. 

i 

UNION  FOR  THE  SAKE  OF  JUDAISM. 

We  are  well  aware  that  there  are  not  a 

few  in  this  country  (and  for  that  matter  in  Europe),  who  have  a 
great  aversion  to  priestly  domination,  and  for  one  we  wish  to  be 
reckoned  among  this  class;  for  to  our  view  there  exists  nothing 
more  odious  than  a  man  who,  whilst  professing  to  be  guided  by  the 
humbling  tenets  of  religion,  lifts  up  his  heart  above  his  fellowmen, 
as  though  his  calling  were  not  for  their,  but  exclusively  for  his,  own 
benefit.  Many  among  these  may  therefore  object  to  all  ecclesiastical 
authority,  as  leading  to  a  tyranny  over  the  conscience  more  to  be 
dreaded  than  the  great  liberty  now  so  universal.  But  we  beg  to 
differ  with  those  who  entertain  this  thought.  There  is  unfortu- 
nately enough  of  priest-power  now  in  the  local  ministers,  quite  as 
much  as  is  likely  to  arise  if  we  have  spiritual  chiefs.  We  have  seen 
enough  to  convince  us  that,  whereas  at  times  the  ministers  are  too 
little  regarded  by  their  constituents,  they  are  at  others  looked  upon 
with  a  ridiculous  air  of  veneration,  as  though  a  mortal  man  must 
be  infallible  because  he  has  a  clerical  character.  In  this  foolish  de- 
votion men  and  women  exhibit  their  folly  alikej  even  in  this  free 
and  enlightened  country ;  and  to  judge  from  circumstances,  this  un- 
wise course  has  led  to  many  unpleasant  feelings  towards  those  who 
could  not  so  regard  as  infallible  the  idolized  ministers.  We  have 
seen  this  frequently  among  our  gentile  neighbors ;  and  so  little  have 
we  profited  by  this  evidence  of  its  evil  consequences,  that  we  have 
occasionally  followed  upon  the  same  path.  The  men,  however,  who, 
according  to  our  plan,  are  to  be  invested  with  authority,  will  have 
nothing  of  a  coercive  power  conferred  upon  them ;  they  are  only 
to  advise,  to  instruct,  to  admonish,  to  teach  by  example  no  less  than 
by  precept ;  and  as  such  they  can  never  have  a  party  attached  to 
them,  unless,  which  God  forfend,  the  spirit  of  madness  should  seize 
upon  the  minds  of  teachers  and  people,  which  would  lead  to  those 
results  which  induce  them  to  forsake  the  plain  letter  of  the  law  and 
the  tradition  to  substitute  the  fancies  of  men  in  their  place.  Such  a 
result,  how'ever,  we  do  not  fear ;  it  is  in  fact  the  isolated  state  of  our 
congregations,  which  may  lead  to  the  formation  of  parties  among 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  7 

us ;  and  only  by  the  selection  of  intelligent  teachers  can  this  threat- 
ening evil  be  avoided 

[See  Occident,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  220-221,  Aug.,   1845.] 

FROM  THE  APPEAL  OF  THE  BERLIN  GENOSSENSCHAFT  FUER 
REFORM  IM  JUDENTHUM,  APRIL  2,  1845. 

Our  appeal  goes  forth  to  you,  our  German  coreligionists  far  and 
near,  that  you  associate  yourselves  with  us,  assure  us  of  your  sup- 
port by  word  and  deed  and  assist  us  so  that  we,  in  great  numbers, 
can  convene  a  synod  which  shall  renew  and  establish  Judaism  in  a 
form  worthy  of  continuing  as  a  living  force  for  us  and  our  children. 

[Allgemcine  Zeitung  des  Judcnthums,  1845,  PP-  234~236;  Der  Israelit  des  neunzehnten 
Jahrliunderts,  1845,  PP-  129-130.] 

DR.  SAML.  HOLDHEIM'S  COMMENT  ON  ABOVE  APPEAL. 

The  idea  of  a  synod  which  governs  and  inspires  the  signers 
of  the  appeal,  though  they  have  as  yet  no  particular  community  in 
mind,  is  in  the  first  place  not  exempt  from  internal  contradictions, 
and,  probably  on  this  account,  cannot  be  carried  out  practically.  The 
belief  in  authority  is  innate  in  man,  so  that  even  he  who  is  apparently 
most  free  cannot  entirely  guard  against  it.  When  Lessing  said  "  all 
who  mock  at  their  fetters  are  not  free,"  he  spoke  truthfully.  Do 
away  with  priesthood  in  one  form,  it  will  always  return  in  another. 
What  the  appeal  wishes  to  accomplish  through  the  convening  of  a 
synod  is,  on  the  one  hand,  the  agreement  of  a  large  number  of  like- 
minded  persons  on  the  expressed  convictions,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  cooperation  or  support  of  theologians  by  profession  who 
are  the  real  experts  and  have  a  scientific  training.1 

1  Der  Gedanke  einer  Synode,  der  die  Unterzeichner  des  Aufrufes,  weil  sie 
noch  nicht  das  leibhafte  Bild  einer  an  einem  Orte  befindlichen  Gemeinde  vor 
Augen  hatte,  beherrschte  und  sogar  begeisterte,  ist  erstens  nicht  frei  von 
innern  Widerspriichen  und  (vielleicht  deshalb)  zweitens  ein  praktisch  unaus- 
fiihrbarer.  Der  Autoritatsglaube  steckt  den  Menschen  in  den  Gliedern,  dass 
die  Freiesten  sich  dessen  nicht  ganz  erwehren  konnen,  und  es  bewahrt  sich 
das  Wort  Lessing's,  "  es  sind  nicht  alle  frei,  die  ihrer  Ketten  spotten."  Man 
mag  das  Priesterthum  in  einer  bestimmten  Gestalt  austreiben,  es  kehct  in 
einer  andern  Gestalt  immer  wieder.  Was  der  Aufruf  durch  die  Berufung 
einer  Synode  erstreben  will,  ist  einerseits  die  Zustimmung  einer  grosseren 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 


S.  STERN  ON  ABOVE  APPEAL,  1845. 

[A  comment  on  the  suggestion  to  call  a  synod  contained  in  the  Appeal  of  the  Berlin 
Reform  Association,  by  Dr.  S.  Stein,  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Association,  and  one  of 
the  writers  of  the  appeal  in  his  brochure,  Die  Gcgcnwarlige  Bewegung  im  Judcnthume, 
Berlin,  1845,  PP-  44-45-] 

The  synod  will  be  composed  of  representatives  elected  by  the  con- 
gregations and  its  essential  task  will  be  to  see  that  it  express  in  its 
decisions  the  convictions  of  the  community  at  large  and  satisfy 
its  needs.  It  is  not  to  consider  itself  an  authority  whose  duty  to 
make  laws  which,  because  they  are  issued  by  it,  shall  be  binding  upon 
all,  but  it  is  to  look  upon  itself  as  the  only  and  highest  means  by 
which  the  conviction  and  will  of  this  body,  composed  of  many,  shall 
find  expression.  For  the  new  form  in  our  religion  is  not  to  be  im- 
posed from  without  as  has  been  the  case  but  should  spring  from  the 
genuine  and  well-understood  need  of  the  present.  Only  in  this  way 
can  the  synod  fully  and  properly  satisfy  this  need.  The  synod  then 
will  be  composed  of  true  representatives  of  the  congregations,  that 
is,  of  men  who  not  only  know  the  convictions  of  the  same,  but 
have  imbibed  them  in  their  deepest  and  purest  sense.  The  synod  is 
not  a  rabbinical  conference  but  naturally  it  will  be  an  essential  re- 
quirement for  the  fulfillment  of  its  tasks  that  science  and  theology  as 
well  as  the  immediate,  practical  needs  of  life  be  well  represented  by 
men  eminently  fitted.  The  decrees  of  the  synod  must  be  decisive 
and  binding  on  the  congregations,  which  have  joined  this  religious 
union.  Binding  (bindend),  I  say,  but  not  forever  (bleibend). 
Binding  for  the  moment  but  not  for  eternity.  The  essential  signifi- 
cance of  the  present  movement  in  Judaism  is  the  casting  off  of  the 
shackles  of  traditional  ceremonialism,  and  so  we  cannot  call  into 
being  new  institutions  which  would  lay  claims  to  similar  eternal 
validity.  Therefore  we  must  not  look  upon  the  decrees  of  this  synod 
as  the  authentic  interpretation  of  the  divine  will,  but  as  the  complete 
expression  of  the  contemporary  religious  consciousness  and  as  the 

Anzahl  von  Gleichgesinnten  zu  den  atisgesprochenen  Ueberzeugungen,  und 
andererseits  die  Mitwirkung  resp.  Unterstiitzung  von  eigentlich  sachver- 
standigen  wissenschaftlich  gebildeten  Theologen  von  Fach. 

[Geschichte  dcr  Entstchung  und  Entwickelung  der  judischen  Refonngemcinde  in  Berlin, 
1857,  p.  119.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  9 

realization  of  the  religious  needs  apparent  in  the  Judaism  of  to-day. 
Consequently  sessions  of  the  synod  must  take  place  at  stated  times, 
not  too  frequent,  so  that  the  idea  of  the  uninterrupted  development 
of  Judaism  be  not  lost  sight  of  without  becoming  at  the  same  time 
too  domineering  a  factor.2 

2  Die  Synode  wird  aus  selbstgewahlten  Vertretern  der  Gemeinden  bestehen, 
und  es  als  ihre  wesentliche  Aufgabe  anzusehen  haben,  in  ihren  Beschliissen 
die  Ueberzeugung  der  Gesammtheit  zu  verwirklichen   und  ihren  Bediirfniss 
die  Befriedignng  zu  gewahren.     Sie  wird  sich  nicht  als  eine  Behorde  anzu- 
sehen haben,  der  es  zusteht  Gesetze  zu  geben,  die,  well  sie  von  ihr  ausgehen, 
bindende  Kraft  fur  die  Gesammtheit  haben,  sondern  sie  wird  sich  als  das 
einige  und  hochste  Organ  betrachten,  in  welchem  die  Ueberzeugung  und  der 
Wille  dieser  vielfach  gegliederten  Gesammtheit  ihren  Ausdruck  finden.     Denn 
die  neue  Form  unserer  Religion  soil  nicht  wieder  eine  von  Aussen  gegebene, 
sondern  eine  dem  wahrhaften  und  wohlverstandenen  Bediirfniss  der  Gegen- 
wart  entsprungene  sein;  und  nur  so  wird  sie  diesem  Bediirfniss  vollkommen 
und  in  der  rechten  Weise  zu  geniigen  vermogen.     Die  Synode  wird  also  aus 
wahrhaften  Vertretern  der  Gemeinden  zusammengesetzt  sein,  das  heisst  aus 
Mannern,  welche  die  Ueberzeugung  derselben  nicht  nur  kennen,  sondern  sie 
am  tiefsten  und  reinsten  in  sich  aufgenommen  haben.     Die  Synode  ist  keine 
Rabbinerversammlung ;  doch  wird  es  naturlich  ein  wesentliches  Erforderniss 
fiir  die  Erfiillung  ihrer  Aufgabe  sein,  dass  das  Element  der  Wissenschaft  und 
der    Gottesgelehrheit    krarftig    in    derselben    vertreten    sei,    so    wie    auch    das 
unmittelbare    Bedurfniss    des    Lebens    durch    Manner    vertreten    sein    muss, 
welche  mit  ihrer  ganzen  Personlichkeit  diesem  angehoren.     Die  Beschliisse 
der  Synode  miissen  entscheidend  und  bindend  fiir  die  Gemeinden  sein,   die 
sich   einmal   dem  gemeinsamen   Religionsverbande   angeschlossen   haben ;    ich 
sage  bindend,  aber  nicht  bleibend,  bindend  fiir  den  Moment  aber  nicht  fiir 
die   Ewigkeit.     Das   wesentliche   Moment   der   gegenwartigen    Bewegung   ist 
die  Befreiung  von  der  Stabilitat  der  gegebenen  religiosen  Formen  des  Juden- 
thums,  und  wir  konnen  nicht  neue  Schopfungen  hervorrufen,  die  wieder  eine 
gleiche  ewige   Geltung   fiir   sich   in   Anspruch   nehmen.     Dartim   miissen   die 
Beschlusse  dieser  Synode  nicht  als  authentische  Auslegungen  des  gottlichen 
Willens,   sondern   als   der  vollstandigste   Ausdruck   des   gegenwartigen   Reli- 
gionsbewusstseins,   und  als  die  Verwirklichung  des   im  heutigen  Judenthum 
sich  kundgebenden  religiosen  Bediirfnisses  angesehen  werden.     Dartim  muss 
die  Erneuerung  der  Synodalversammlung  in  bestimmten,  freilich  nicht  allzu- 
kurzen  Zeitabschnitten  festgestellt  werden,  damit  das  Element  des  ununter- 
brochenen  Werdens  im  Leben  des  Judenthums  nicht  untergehe,  ohne  allzu- 
machtig  in  demselben  zu  walten. 

[From  Die  Gegenwdrtige  Bewegung  im  Judenthume,  Dr.  S.  Stern,   1845,  PP-  44-45-1 


io  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

M.  HESS,  1845- 

In  the  reform  movement  an  assembly  inaugurated  by  the  people 
and  composed  of  its  most  intelligent  and  high-minded  members,  a 
synod,  is  the  best  means  of  establishing  the  elements  common  to  all 
as  well  as  guarding  individual  religious  freedom.3 


1846. 

FROM   THE   ADDRESS   ISSUED   BY   THE   BRESLAU   GENOSSEN- 
SCHAFT  FUR  REFORM  IM  JUDENTHUME,  APRIL  2,   1846. 

THE  REFORM  MOVEMENT  IN  BRESLAU. 

The  rabbis,  for  certain  reasons,  can  surely  not  anticipate  all  needs. 
These  must  first  make  themselves  felt  distinctly.  Religion  is  not 
merely  the  affair  of  the  scholar,  the  guide  and  teacher  of  the  com- 
munity. It  concerns  every  individual,  especially  since  there  is  ki 
Judaism  no  distinction  between  clergy  and  laity.  Those  who  are  not 
rabbis  must  also  attempt  to  gain  a  clear  conception  of  the  convictions 
and  needs  of  Judaism  and  give  utterance  to  them.  This  is  what  we 
greet  as  a  glorious  sign  of  the  times  in  the  Association  for  Reform  in 
Berlin.  This  association  has,  indeed,  not  yet  given  expression  to 
any  hard  and  fast  principles.  It  has  merely  demonstrated  the  evi- 
dent need  for  a  more  decided  reform  than  has  been  instituted 

hitherto It  has  arranged  for  a  meeting  of  all  the  friends  of 

reform  to  be  held  on  the  i/|.th  and  I5th  of  April  for  deliberation  and 
consultation.  Theirs  is  an  example  for  us  to  copy.  That  we  come 
to  some  understanding  on  numerous  points  to  be  brought  up  at  the 
above-mentioned  deliberations,  is  certainly  a  matter  of  great  import- 

3  Eine  aus  dem  Volke  hervorgehende  und  seine  intelligensten  und  gesinnungs- 
vollsten  Glieder  zahlende  Versammlung,  eine  Synode,  ist  am  ersten  geeignet 
bei  dem  Werk  der  Reform  sowohl  das  alle  gemeinsame  festzustellen  als  die 
individuelle  Glaubensfreiheit  zu  wahren. 

[Editorial  comment  on  same,  Der  Israelit  des  neunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  1845,  Vol. 
VI.  p.  163.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  n 

ance  to  us ;  let  us  not  then  permit  the  opportunity  to  slip  by  of 
strengthening  and  rectifying  our  convictions  by  mutual  discussion.4 

THE  PROVISIONAL  COMMITTEE  OF  THE  BRESLAU 

ASSOCIATION  FOR  REFORM  IN  JUDAISM. 

BRESLAU,  Mar.  30,  1846. 


1848. 

PROGRAM  OF  THE  FRIENDS  OF  REFORM  OF  THE  JEWISH 
RELIGIOUS  COMMUNITY  OF  WORMS. 

We  consider  that  the  congregational  policy  best  suited  for  the 
future  which  shall  accord  the  opportunity  to  all  members  of  the 
congregation  of  expressing  their  opinions  directly,  as  well  as  through 
representatives,  and  of  thus  participating  in  the  shaping  of  religious 

4  Freilich  konnen  die  Rabbiner  auch  noch  aus  andern  Griinden  nicht  alien 
Bediirfnissen  zuvorkommen ;  diese  miissen  sich  erst  selbst  bestimmt  geltend 
machen.  Die  Religion  ist  nicht  bios  die  Sache  des  Gelehrten,  des  Fiihrers 
und  Lehrers  der  Gemeinde,  sie  ist  die  Sache  eines  jeden  Einzeln,  und  nament- 
lich  im  Judenthume  gibt  es  keinen  Unterschied  zwischen  Laien  und  Priestern. 
Es  miissen  also  auch  die  Nicht-Rabbiner  iiber  die  Ueberzeugungen  und  Bedurf- 
nisse  sich  klar  zu  machen  suchen  und  sie  aussprechen.  Das  ist  es,  was  wir 
in  der  Reformgenossenschaft  zu  Berlin  als  ein  schones  Zeichen  unserer  Zeit 
begriissen.  Diese  hat  allerdings  bis  jetzt  keine  festen  Grundsatze  ausge- 
sprochen,  sie  hat  bios  das  Bediirfniss  einer  entschiedenen  Reform,  als  sie 
bisher  sich  gezeigt  hat,  kundgegeben,  sie  hat  ....  auf  den  14.  und  15.  April 
Berathungen  angesetzt  mit  sammtlichen  Freunden  der  Reform  im  Judenthume. 
Wir  sehen  hierin  ein  Beispiel,  das  von  uns  Nachahmung  verdient.  Eine 
Verstandigung  uber  mehrere  Punkte,  welche  bei  jenen  Berathungen  vor- 
kommen,  ist  gewiss  auch  fur  uns  von  grossem  Werthe,  und  so  wollen  wir 
uns  das  Mittel  nicht  entgehen  lassen,  durch  gegenseitige  Besprechung  auch 
unsere  Ueberzeugungen  zu  kraftigen  und  zu  berichtigen. 

DAS  VORLAUFIGE  COMITE  DER  BRESLAUER 

GENOSSENSCHAFT  FUR  REFORM  IM  JUDENTHUME. 

BRESLAU,  den  30.  Marz,  1846. 

{Der  Israelit  des  ncunzehnten  Jahrhunderts,  Vol.  VII,  Apr.  26,    1846,  p.    134.] 


12  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

affairs.     Therefore,  we  demand  periodical  public  assemblies  of  the 
congregations,  and  just  such  synods.5 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  July  17,   1848,  Vol.  XII,  p.  431.] 

1848. 

CALL  FOR  A  SYNOD  TO  TAKE  PLACE  OF  THE  RABBINICAL 

CONFERENCR 

We  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  rabbinical  conferences  are  no  longer 
in  keeping  with  the  need  of  the  time.  The  people  must  take  their 
religious  affairs  into  their  own  hands.  Judaism  demands  that  the 
work  of  progress  be  done  by  the  communities  themselves.  There- 
fore, instead  of  a  rabbinical  conference  we  must  have  a  synod  whose 
members  must  be  chosen  directly  by  the  people  irrespective  of  the 
fact  as  to  whether  they  are  rabbis  or  not,  for  Judaism  knows  no 
distinction  between  rabbis  and  laymen.0 

5Als  die  angemessene  Gemeindeverfassung  der  Zukunft  erkennen  wir 
diejenige,  welche  alien  Gliedern  der  Gemeind^  Gelegenheit  gewahrt,  sowoh), 
unmittelbar  als  auch  durch  Vertreter  sich  auszusprechen  und  an  der  Gestalt 
ung  des  religiosen  Lebens  sich  zu  betheiligen.  Wir  verlangen  daher  perio- 
disch,  wiederkehrende,  "offentliche  Gemeindeversammlungen  und  eben  solche 
Synode." 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  July  17,   1848,  Vol.  XII,  p.  431.] 

6  AN  DIE  VEREHRLICHEN   MlTGLIEDER  DER  BISHERIGEN  RABBINERVERSAMMLUNGEN. 

....  Wir  sind  der  Ansicht  dass  ....  das  Institut  der  Rabbinerversamm- 
lung  nicht  mehr  als  zeitgemass  zu  betrachten  sei;  das  Volk  will  und  soil, 
auch  in  religioser  Beziehung  seine  Angelegenheiten  in  die  eigene  Hand  nehmen 
....  Das  Judenthum  erwartet  und  fordert  jetzt  das  Werk  seiner  Fort 
bildung  von  den  Gemeinden  selbst;  sie  miissen  sich  scharen  und  einen,  dam  it 
das  gemeinsame  religiose  Band  befestigt,  der  religiose  Geist  des  Judenthums 
von  Neuem  geweckt  werde ;  und  wir  leben  der  Ueberzeugung,  dass  die 
Gemeinden,  auf  die  gehorige  Weise  angeregt,  aus  ihrer  theilweisen  Erschlaft- 
heit  sich  erheben,  ihre  Aufgabe  erkennen,  den  hohen  Beruf,  fur  welchen  sie, 
die  Tragerinnen  der  altesten,  wahren  Gotteserkenntniss,  der  Weltgeschichte 
verantwortlich  sind,  erfiillen  werden.  Wir  erlauben  tins  daher,  zunachst  an 
Sie,  geehrte  Amtsbriider,  die  Sie  durch  Ihr  Erscheinen  bei  den  bisherigen 
Rabbinerversammlungen  Ihr  lebhaftes  Interesse  fur  die  Erhaltung  und  Fort- 
bildung  des  Judenthums  an  den  Tag  gelegt,  dann  aber  an  alle  unsere  Herren 
Kcllegen  nahe  und  fern,  denen  die  bedrohliche  Lage  unserer  Religions- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  13 

f 

1848. 
LUDWIG  PHILIPPSON'S  PLAN  OF  A  GENERAL  GERMAN  SYNOD. 

(1)  A  synod  composed  not  of  rabbis,  preachers,  theologians  and 
teachers  but  of  Jews  of  whatever  station  or  occupation. 

(2)  A  synod  so  directly  representative  of  the  people  that  what 
really  lives  among1  them  will  find  expression  and  confirmation. 

(3)  A  synod  whose  guides  and  members  are  men  of  the  people, 
be  they  rabbis  or  not. 

(4)  A  synod  which  represents  not  one  city,  one  province  or  state, 
but  the  whole  of  the  German  fatherland  without  excluding  other 
countries  which  may  desire  to  participate. 

We  are  now  living  in  a  period  not  only  of  political  but  of  spirit- 
ual freedom.  Israel  has  entered  upon  a  phase  of  its  existence  un- 
like any  during  the  whole  course  of  its  history.  We  have  ceased  to 
be  a  nation  among  the  nations  and  are  purely  a  religions  community. 
Religion  alone  unites  us.  Such  conditions  call  for  a  synod.  Such 
an  assembly  must  express  itself  regarding  the  meaning  of  Judaism 
as  it  shows  itself  to-day  in  the  consciousness  of  those  who  profess 
it.  A  synod  must  give  its  opinion  as  to  the  value  and  power  of 
ceremonialism  and  also  as  to  the  reorganization  of  the  cult.  With 


gemeinde  zu  Herzen  geht,  die  dringende  Bitte,  dass  Sie  in  engeren  und 
weiteren  Kreisen,  durch  Wort  und  Schrift,  mit  uns  dahin  wirken  wollen,  das 
an  die  Stelle  der  Rabbinerversamifllungen  eine  Synode  trete,  deren  Mitglieder 
aus  der  unbeschranktesten,  freien  Wahl  der  Gememcjen  hervorgegangen,  den 
im  Judenthume  unbegrundeten  Unterschied  zwischen  Rabbinen  und  Laien 
nicht  kennend,  unter  dem  Beistande  Gottes  einen  Geist  hervorrufen  werden, 
welcher  als  der  gemeinsame  Geist  der  Judenheit  sich  zu  erkennen  gebe^und 
wirke.  Wir  in  unseren  Kreisen  werden,  nach  getroffener  Uebereinkunft  mit 
den  Mannern  von  Einsicht  und  Einfluss,  zu  einer  gemeinschaftlichen  Be- 
rathung,  wie  eine  Synode  in  kurzester  Zeit  in's  Leben  zu  rufen  sei,  zusammen- 
treten  und  iiber  das  Resultat  seiner  Zeit  offentliche  Mittheilung  machen. 
Wir  ersuchen  Sie,  auch  iiber  Ihre  Schritte  durch  die  offentlichen  Organe 
moglichst  schleunig  berichten  zu  wollen. 

DIE  MITGLIEDER  DES  BISHERIGEN  AUSSCHUSSES 

FUR  DIE  VIERTE  RABBINERVERSAMMLUNG. 
H.  WAGNER,  S.  ADLER,  A.  ADLER,  FORMSTECHER,  STEIN. 
WORMS,  24.  Juli,  1848. 

(.From  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  Aug.  7,   1848,  p.  47Q.] 


14  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

what  purpose.  So  that  religious  life  may  be  reinvigorated,  that  it 
follow  new  channels  and  become  generally  active.  So  that  questions 
of  religious  life  be  taken  out  of  the  hands  of  quarreling  thelogians 
and  be  solved  by  the  people.7 

7  Auf  einige  Tage  in  Frankfurt  anwesend,  war  es  mir  eine  der  ersten 
Aufgaben,  niit  den  geschatzten  Kollegen  Stein  und  Formstecher  (Offenbach), 
die  Frage  der  Synode  zu  durchsprechen,  und  meine  Meinung  dahin  darzu- 
legen,  dass  eine  allgemeine  deutsche  Synode  das  nothwendigste  Bedurfniss 
der  Jetzzeit,  unumganglich,  zur  thatkraftigsten  Erwirkung  empfohlen,  sei. 
Die  genannten  Manner  kamen  mir  mit  derselben  Ansicht  entgegen,  und 
handigten  mir  zugleich  Behufs  Abdrucks  den  unten  folgenden  Bericht  und 
resp.  Aufruf  des  bisherigen  Komite's  fur  eine  vierte  Rabbinerversammlung 
ein. 

Also  eine  allgemeine  deutsche  Synode! 

Eine  Synode,  die  nicht  aus  Rabbinern,  Predigern,  Theologen,  Lehrern 
besteht,  sondern  aus  Juden,  welchen  Standes  welcher  Beschaftigung  es  sei. 

Eine  Synode,  die  so  unmittelbar  aus  dem  Volke  hervorgeht,  um  das,  was 
im  Volke  wahrhaft  und  wirklich  lebt,  zum  Ausdruck  und  zur  Feststellung  zu 
bringen. 

Eine  Synode,  deren  Leiter  also  Volksmanner  sind,  seien  sie  Rabbiner,  seien 
sie  Nicht-Rabbiner,  deren  Mitglieder  Volksmanner  sind. 

Eine  Synode,  die  nicht  eine  Stadt,  eine  Provinz,  ein  Land  reprasentirt, 
sondern  das  ganze  deutsche  Vaterland  umschliesst,  ohne  selbst  damit  andere 
Lander,  die  sich  ihr  anschliessen  wollen,  auszuschli^ssen. 

Wir  haben  damit  wohl  das  ausgedruckt,  was  in  Vieler  Geiste  lebt. 

Die  erste  Frage  lautet :  warum  ? 

Brauchen  wir  zur  Bearttwortung  dieser  I^age  hinzudeuten  auf  die  Zeiten, 
die  gekommen  sind?  Auf  die  Zeit  volliger  Glaubens-  und  Gewissensfreiheit, 
auf  die  Zeit,  wo  aber  auf  der  einen  Seite  das  Aufgeben  aller  positiven  Reli- 
gionslehre,  auf  der  andern  Seite  das  starre  Festhalten  des  Formwesens  gleich 
wesentliche  Gefahr  droht,  auf  die  Zeit,  wo  die  momentane  Noth  im  Verein 
mit  feligiosem  Indifferentismus  die  Gemeindeverbande  aufzulosen  beginnt, 
auf  die  Zeit,  wo  Alles  in  Frage  steht,  aber  auch  Alles  sofort  eine  Antwort 
haben  will?  Es  kann  gar  nichts  Dringlicheres  sein,  als  dass  in  solcher  Zeit 
das  Volk  selbst  seine  Stimme  abgebe,  was  es  meine  und  wolle.  Woher  soil 
denn  sonst  die  Ueberzeugung  kommen,  dass  "  innen  im  schaffenden  Marke" 
noch  ein  voiles  Leben  pulsirt?  Aus  den  leeren  Gotteshausern?  Aus  den 
zerfallenden  Gemeinden?  Nein,  wie  einst  das  Volk  unter  Josua  versammelt 
ward  und  tagte,  und  die  Frage  beantwortete :  wollet  Ihr  fernerhin  dem 
Herrn  dienen,  und  seine  Lehre  bekennen?  Mit  einem,  bis  zu  uns  noch 
heruberschallenden  Ja!  Ja!  iirmerdar — so  muss  auch  in  einer  solchen  Zeit 
das  Volk  seine  Stimme  erheben  und  sprechen. 

Wir  sind  eingetreten  in  eine  Zeit  der  Frejheit,  nicht  bios  4er  biirgerlichen, 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  15 


1848. 
PHILIPPSON'S  ADDITIONAL  REMARKS  ON  SYNOD. 

In  the  immediate  past,  Judaism  has  been  less  active  than  any 
other  existing  human  institution.  No  irresistible  influence,  no 
powerful  activity  has  appealed  to  common  interest.  There  has  been 
a  great  deal  of  bickering,  wrangling  and  abuse,  but  with  scant 

sondern  auch  der  geistigen  Freiheit.  Israel  ist  jetzt  in  eine  Phase  eingetreten, 
wie  sie  fiir  dasselbe  noch  gar  nicht  da  gewesen  ira  ganzen  Verlaufe  seiner 
langen  Geschichte,  wo  es  aufgehort  hat,  vollig  aufhdren  muss,  ein  Volk  zu 
sein  unter  den  Volkern,  sondern  lediglich  eine  Religionsgemeinde  verbleiben 
kann,  die  eben  nur  in  Religiosen  ihr  Gemeinsames  und  Vereinigendes  hat. 
Nun,  so  muss  eine  solche  Zeit  begriisst  werden  durch  den  Allgemeinen  Zuruf : 
eine  Solche  sind  wir,  und  nur  eine  Solche,  und  waiter  Nichts,  aber  eine  Solche 
wollen  wir  und  unsere  Sohne  und  Tochter  verbleiben! 

Aeusseres  und  Inneres  drangen  so  zu  einer  Synode. 

Wozu  ?  die  zweite  Frage. 

Eine  Synode  muss  sich  aussprechen  iiber  den  Inhalt,  den  Lehrinhalt  des 
Judenthums,  wie  er  im  Bewusstsein  seiner  heutigen  Bekenner  lebt ;  muss  sich 
aussprechen  iiber  den  Werth  des  Formwesens,  ob  dasselbe  eine  verpflichtende 
Kraft  hat,  wie  weit  dieselbe  ginge  oder  nicht  ginge ;  muss  sich  aussprechen 
iiber  die  Neugestaltung  des  Kultus;  muss  sich  aussprechen  iiber  die  Neuge- 
staltung  des  Gemeindewesens.  Was  hiermit  bewirkt  werde?  Dass  das 
religiose  Leben  neu  erwache,  in  einen  neuen  Fluss  gerathe,  allgemein  werde 
und  sich  bethatige ;  dass  das  religiose  Leben  genommen  werde  aus  den  Handen 
streitender  Theologaster  und  verlegt  werde  in  die  Herzen  des  Volkes,  mitten 
hinein,  wo  es  Herz  und  Geist  wieder  in  Besitz  nehme ;  dass  die  Freiheit  auch 
in  Israel  zur  Wahrheit  werde,  und  aus  dem  Grusse  dieser  Freiheit,  aus  der 
Anerkennung  dieser  Freiheit  eine  neue  Begeisterung  geschopft  werde. 
Haltet  Ihr  dies  fiir  wenig,  fiir  entbehrlich? 

Wie?  die  dritte  Frage. 

Nach  meiner  Ansicht  muss  die  Synode  bestehen  aus,  von  den  sammtlichen 
Mitgliedern  der  Gemeinden  nach  einem  gewissen  Wahlmodus  gewahlten 
Abgeordneten,  denen  sich  aber  auch  auf  seine  Kosten  Jeder,  der  den  Beruf 
in  sich  fiihlt,  anschliessen  kann. 

Dies  die  kurze  Andeutung,  die  ich  heute  geben  wollte.  In  Kurzem  wird 
sich  ein  Komite  zu  Frankfurt  am  Main  bilden,  welches  die  weiteren  Auffor- 
derungen  und  Bestimmungen  erlassen  wird.  Die  gelegenste  Zeit  wird  die 
gleich  nach  dem  Sukkotfeste  sein. 

PHILIPPSON, 

[From  Allgemeine  Zeitung  de$  Judenthums,  Aug.  7,   1848,  pp.  469-470.] 


16  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

result.  In  general,  sluggishness,  inertia  and  inflexibility  have  been 
the  rule,  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Jews  have  long  been  accustomed 
to  passive  resistance ;  to  endure  but  not  to  fight ;  to  defend  but  not 
to  attack. 

That  reorganization  in  Judaism  is  necessary  needs  no  proof.  This 
has  already  been  recognized  and  many  attempts  at  it  have  been  made. 
The  public  service  has  been  beautified,  the  press  has  worked,  and 
rabbinical  conferences  have  been  held.  But  all  to  no  avail.  All 
efforts  at  reorganization  met  the  same  fate.  They  were  short-lived 
and  made  no  impression  on  the  masses.  Why  was  this  ?  The  reason 
is  plain.  Because  these  movements  did  not  get  at  the  root  of  the 
trouble  and  especially  because  they  did  not  originate  from  the  people. 
The  leaders  did  not  recognize  that  the  traditional  legal  code  is 
religiously  authoritative  for  the  Jews  of  to-day.  The  rabbinical 
conferences  did,  it  is  true,  regard  this  question  as  important  but  they 
did  not  concern  themselves  with  the  question  as  a  whole.  They 
debated  about  the  Hebrew  language,  the  Sabbath  boundary  and  the 
unbiblical  holidays. 

Here  it  is  that  the  Synod  steps  in.  It  is  our  belief  that  this 
vital  problem  of  Judaism  can  be  solved  by  a  synod  appointed  by 
the  people  at  large.  If  we  are  mistaken,  an  universal  synod  would, 
at  any  rate,  give  an  impulse  towards  a  united  movement  in  Judaism, 
which  in  itself  would  be  an  important  achievement.  Therefore,  all 
pains  must  be  taken  and  all  efforts  made  to  bring  a  synod  into  being. 
Heads  of  communities,  rabbis  and  teachers  use  all  your  strength  for 
this  end.  Be  not  idlers  in  this  cause ;  be  not  indifferent  or  unsym- 
pathetic. 

Every  Community  should  send  delegates.  None  should  consider 
itself  too  small.  The  task  of  the  delegates  sent  to  the  synod  will 
not  and  cannot  be  the  making  of  decrees  which  shall  have  the  power 
of  law.  The  synod  can  only  express  the  living  conviction  of  the 
Jewish  people  and  its  power  and  efficacy  will  come  from  the  truth  of 
its  dicta.8 

8  Man  kann  wohl  mit  Grund  behauptcn,  class  in  der  ganzen  jiingsten  Vergan- 
genheit  ....  unter  alien  bestehenden  grosseren  Instituten  der  Menschheit,  die 
Judenh.eit  die  geringste  Energie  bethatigt  hat.  Es  ist  in  derselben  im  grossen 
Ganzen  keine  machtige  Regsamkeit,  keine  ergreifende,  hinreissende,  Alle  in 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  17 

Bewegung  setzende  Thatigheit  fur  das  gemeinsame  Interesse  sichtbar  ge- 
worden.  Es  gab  viel  Parteistreit,  es  wurde  sehr  viel  geschrieben,  viel 
geschimpft  und  gezankt — aber  das  schwamm  Alles  auf  der  Oberflache,  hatte 
zumeist  eine  lokale  Begrenzung  und  brachte  wenig  Resultat 

Dies  ist  nun  die  Frage :  wird  es  anders  werden?  wird  jetzt,  wo  es  iiberaus 
nothwendig  ist,  dass  die  Herzen  und  Geister  ergriffen  werden,  um  unter  dem 
Fliigelschlag  einer  neuen  Zeit  den  alten  Bau  des  Judenthums  von  Neuem  zu 
begriinden,  dass  sich  auch  auf  ihm  die  neue  Zeit  lebendig  aufzubauen  ver- 
moge,  wird  jetzt  dergleichen  vor  sich  gehen?  Wird  es  jetzt  gelingen,  mehr 
als  eine  kurze,  oberflachliche  Erregung  zu  bewirken?  Wird  jetzt  mehr  daraus 
werden,  als  dass,  um  volksthumlich  zu  sprechen,  Einige  die  Kopfe  zusam- 
menstecken,  und,  wenn  sie  sie  wieder  auseinander  thun,  Alles  eben  wieder 
voriiber  ist? 

Es  gilt  hier  jetzt  die  Sache  der  Synode. 

Eine  aus  dem  Volke  selbst  herworgehende  Synode  ist  die  letzte  Instanz, 
ist  der  letzte  Versuch,  eine  Neugestaltung  da  hervorzubringen,  wo  sie  noth- 
wendig geworden,  und  wo  alle  anderen  Versuche  scheiterten,  und  zwar 
scheiterten,  weil  sie  nur  theilweise  Versuche  waren ;  sie  ist  eine  Appellation 
an  die  Masse,  um  durch  sie  zu  bewirken,  was  sonst  Niemand  bewirken  konnte. 

"  Eine  Neugestaltung,  wo  sie  nothwendig  geworden."  Dass  eine  solche 
nothwendig  geworden,  brauchen  wir  nicht  lange  zu  erweisen.  Es  sehe  nur 
Jeder  um  sich  herum,  es  sehe  nur  Jeder  auf  das  aufwachsende  Geschlecht,  und 
die  ihm  eingepflanzte  Richtung,  es  sehe  nur  Jeder  darauf,  ob  das  alte  Juden- 
thum  mit  Allem,  was  jetzt  vorgeht,  sich  noch  lange  vereinbaren  lasse — dann 
hat  er  sich  selbst  die  Antwort  gegeben.  Zu  dieser  Neugestaltung  wurden 
viele  Versuche  gemacht,  man  verschonte  den  Kultus,  die  Presse  arbeitete, 
Rabbinerversammlungen  wurden  abgehalten.  Alle  diese  Versuche  haben 
denselben  Erfolg  gehabt — nach  kurzem  Leben  starben  sie  ab,  sie  drangen 
wenig  in  die  Masse  ein,  sie  iiberwaltigten  dieselbe  nicht,  einige  Athemziige 
und  es  war  wieder  vorbei. 

Man  fragt:  warum?  Sehr  einfach,  weil  die  Bewegung  nicht  aus  der 
Masse  selbst  hervorging,  und  weil  sie  eben  iiberall  nur  ein  theilweises  Ueber- 
tiinchen  einiger  wunden  Flecken  waren,  nicht  aber  auf  den  Kern  der  ganzen 
Frage  eingingen. 

Dieser  Kern  der  ganzen  Frage  im  heutigen  Judenthum  ist  offenbar :  hat 
das  Formgesetz  fur  die  gegenwartigen  Bekenner  des  Judenthums  noch  reli- 
gios  verpflichtende  Kraft  oder  nicht? 

Es  hilft  wahrlich  Nichts  mehr,  um  den  Brei  herumztigehen,  ohne  ihn  zu 
beriihren,  weil  man  sich  die  Finger  daran  verbrennen  konne.  Es  gilt  endlich 
einmal  die  Wahrheit  imumwunden  auszusprechen.  Die  Rabbinerversamm- 
lungen fiihlten  wohl  auch,  dass  dies  die  Lebensfrage  sei— aber  sie  nahmen  nur 
immer  ein  Stiickchen  vor,  statt  die  ganze  Frage.  Sie  debatirten  iiber  die 
Verpflichtung  zur  hebraischen  Gebetsprache,  iiber  die  Verpflichtung  zur  Sab- 
batgrenze,  zu  den  unbiblischen  Festtagen,  und  so  weiter.  Aber  diese  Brocken 


i8  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

konnten  eben  die  Sache  nicht  zu  irgend  einer  Entscheidung  bringen.  Das 
Leben  stand  an  der  Pforte  und  klopfte  mit  der  Frage  an:  hat  das  ganze 
Formgesetz  noch  religios  verpflichtende  Kraft  oder  nicht?  aber  sie  wiesen  es 
mit  der  Frage  ab,  und  suchten  es  mit  kleinen  Schnittchen  zu  sattigen.  Da 
wollte  es  denn  zuletzt  Nichts  mehr  davon  wissen.  Als  nun  gar  die  Rab- 
binerversammlung  miter  Geiger's  Leitung  diese  Frage  nicht  einmal  in  der 
Verhandlung  iiber  den  Sabbat  zulassen  wollte,  war  jene  von  selbst  todt. 

Also  dies  ist  die  Frage,  dies  ist  die  ganze  Frage,  und  eine  Entscheidung 
iiber  diese  Frage  kann  und  soil  von  einer  Synode,  die  aus  alien  Theilen  der 
Masse  ztisammengesetzt  ist,  getroffen  werden.  Indem  im  Leben  ein  sehr 
grosser  Theil  der  Juden,  namentlich  der  Jtigend,  das  ganze  Formgesetz  ver- 
lassen  hat  und  sich  hochstens  nach  Belieben  bald  dieses,  bald  jenes  Stuck 
bewahrt;  indem  andrerseits  ein  grosser  Theil  der  Juden,  namentlich  der  an 
Jahren  alteren,  das  Formgesetz  in  seinem  ganzen  Umfange  noch  festhalt — ist 
es  eben  die  Lebensfrage :  ob  das  Formgesetz  religios  verpflichtende  Kraft 
habe  oder  nicht? 

Also  die  Synode.  Wir  sagten,  dass  diese  die  letzte  Instanz,  der  letzte  Ver- 
such  sei,  in  und  aus  der  Gesammtheit  eine  Antwort  fur  die  Frage  zu  erlangen, 
und  das  Leben  der  Gesammtheit  nach  einer  bestimmten  Richtung  zu  konzen- 
triren  und  zu  bewegen.  Wiirde  die  Synode  nicht  zu  Stande,  bei  wiederholten 
Versuchen  nicht  zu  Stande  kommen,  oder  wiirde  sie  zu  keinem  Resultate 
fiihren — dann  miisste  man  die  Sache  sich  ganzlich  allein  iiberlassen,  und  ruhig 
zusehen,  was  daraus  wiirde,  was  in  der  allgemeinen  Gahrung  der  Zeit  sich 
daraus  von  selbst  gestatte. 

Allerdings  wiirde  eine  erste  allgemeine  Synode  zunachst  erst  den  Anstoss 
geben  fur  die  gesammte  Bewegung  damit  ware  aber  auch  schon  eine  Haupt- 
sache  gewonnen.  Es  muss  daher  Alles  aufgewendet  werden,  alle  Anstrengung 
gemacht  werden,  um  eine  Synode  zu  Stande  zu  bringen.  Gemeindevorsteher, 
Rabbiner,  Lehrer,  hierfiir  setzt  alle  Eure  Kraft,  alle  Eure  Bemuhung  ein! 
Lasset  Euch  hierin  nicht  als  mitssige  Manner  betreffen,  hullet  Euch  hier  nicht 
in  den  Mantel  der  Gleichgiltigkeit  oder  der  Theilnahmlosigkeit  ein,  Ihr,  Rab- 
biner, spielet  nicht  wieder  die  auf  zweien  Seiten  Hinkenden,  die  erst  den 
Erfolg  abwarten  wollen — es  wiirde  der  Tag  der  Abrechnung  Euch  nicht  allzu- 
fern  liegen,  und  Euere  zerfallenen  Stiihle  wiirden  Euch  bald  auf  die  eigenen 
Fiisse  stellen. 

Die  Frage :  wie  eine  solche  Synode  zusammenzusetzen  sei  ?  haben  wir  in  der 
vorigen  Nummer  schon  zu  beantworten  gesucht.  Unsere  Leser  wissen,  dass  wir 
in  religiosen  Dingen  keine  Vertretung  anerkennen,  es  kann  eben  die  religiose 
Ueberzeugung  des  Individuums  nicht  durch  einen  Dritten  vertreten  werden. 
Aber  es  handelt  sich  zunachst  an  der  Vertretung  der  Theilnahme,  und  darum 
muss  die  Synode  zunachst  aus  Vertretern  der  einzelnen  Landschaften,  Kreise, 
Gemeinden  bestehen.  Wer  vertreten  sein  soil?  Jede  Gemeinde,  die  sich 
vertreten  lassen  will,  sei  sie  gross  sei  sie  klein.  Jeder  Vertreter,  der  hinge- 
schickt  wird,  ist  eben  nur  Vertreter  der  Theilnahme,  der  Betheiligung  an  der 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  19 

1848. 
ISAAC  M.  WISE'S  CALL. 

To  the  Ministers  and  Other  Israelites: 

To  my  brother  Israelites  in  North  America,  I  call  in  the  name  of 
my  God,  u»u  im  prnrui  pin  "  Be  firm,  and  let  us  strengthen  each 
other  in  behalf  of  our  people."  The  Rev.  Editor  of  this  periodical 
has  granted  me  the  favor  to  give  publicity  to  my  views  about  the 
association  of  Israelitish  congregations  in  North  America,  to  produce 
one  grand  and  sublime  end — to  defend  and  maintain  our  sacred 
faith,  to  the  glory  of  God  and  for  the  benefit  of  Israel  and  all  man- 
kind. 

Brethren !  though  I  am  a  stranger  among  you,  unknown  and  un- 
important ;  though  I  am  aware  that  there  are  men  among  you  much 
better  than  myself,  »jnD»  mr  DJBp  "  whose  little  finger  is  thicker  than 
my  loins ;"  though  my  years  are  but  few  in  numbers  and  among  you 
are  men  gray-haired  and  highly  experienced,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
I  make  use  of  the  Rev.  Editor's  permission  to  express  publicly  my 
views  on  this  important  subject,  because  I  think  with  Elihu,  son  of 
Borachel,  the  Buzite  of  old,  ^  won  *1B>  nDBW  E^JNZI  SM  nil  px 
"  Verily  it  is  the  will  in  man  "  (that  renders  him  able  to  speak  and 
act),  "it  is  the  spirit  of  the  Almighty  that  gives  understanding  to 

Synode.  Man  wahle  daher  lieber  den  Namen  Abgeordneter.  Jede  Gemeinde 
sende  einen  Abgeordneten  zur  Synode,  einen  Abgeordneten,  der  die  Gemeinde 
eben  nur  als  an  der  Synode  betheiligt  vertritt.  Es  glaube  keine  Gemeinde 
sich  zu  klein,  urn  einen  Abgeordneten  zu  senden.  Es  werden  doch  schon 
genug  Gemeinden  sein,  die  keinen  Abgeordneten  senden.  Es  halte  also  keine 
Gemeinde  dafiir,  dass  es  ihrerseits  einerlei  sei,  einen  Abgeordneten  zu  senden. 
Die  Synode  wird  also  zunachst  aus  den  Abgeordneten  der  jiidischen  Ge- 
meinden bestehen.  Dann  aber  halten  wir  dafiir,  dass  auch  Jedem,  der  in  sich 
den  Beruf  fiihlt,  der  Zutritt  zu  Synode  gestattet  sei.  Die  Synode  hat  nicht, 
kann  nicht  die  Aufgabe  haben,  Beschlusse  zu  fassen,  die  Gesetzeskraft 
batten;  sondern:  das  im  Bewusstsein  der  jiidischen  Glaubensgenossenschaft 
Lebende  auszusprechen.  Kraft  und  Giltigkeit  wird  dies  dann  eben  dadurch 
erlangen,  dass  in  diesem  Ausspruch  die  Wahrheit  liegt,  die  wirkliche  Ueber- 
zeugung  grosser  Theile  der  Judenheit.  Darum  kann  es  bei  der  Synode  nicht 
auf  angstliche  Zahlung  berechtiger  Stimmen  ankommen,  sondern  auf  moglich 
grossten  Zufluss  Aller,  die  Herz  und  Geist  fur  unsre  heilige  Sache  haben. 

[From  Allgetneine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  Aug.  14,  1848,  pp.  481-483.  See  also  ibid., 
Dec.  4,  1848,  No.  50,  pp.  711-714.] 


2O  VlEWS   ON   THE    SYNOD 

them  "  (who  have  a  good  will  devoted  to  God  and  virtue),  or  if  I 
shall  express  the  same  idea  in  a  Talmudic  form  of  speech,  I  may 
say  I  trust  toiDBn  KWDn  "  in  the  help  of  heaven." 

It  is  one  of  the  holy  demands  of  our  religion,  vann  roW>  to  walk 
in  the  ways  of  God.  God  is  a  unity,  nriN  'n  wherefore  all  mankind 
will  one  day  be  united  for  one  great  end — to  worship  in  truth  the 
Most  High,  to  adore  His  holy  name,  with  humility  and  purity. 
Then  will  also  be  fulfilled  nriN  lossn  that  God's  name  will  be  one. 
To  bring  about  this  sublime  unity,  God  has  selected  the  people  of 
Israel  from  among  all  nations,  to  be  the  bearers  of  divine  truth, 
and  to  diffuse  the  bright  light  of  religion  among  mankind.  Where- 
fore we  may  justly  say,  our  cause  is  the  cause  of  mankind,  our  eleva- 
tion and  success  are  the  elevation  and  success  of  the  human  family, 
our  fall  is  also  the  fall  of  all  society ;  since  everyone  must  admit  the 
fact  that  true  religion  is  the  basis  of  civilization. 

There  is  perhaps  not  a  single  Israelite  among  my  readers  who  is 
not  fully  inspired  with  the  inclination  to  share  in  the  mission  of  his 
ancient  people,  as  the  voice  of  God  called  to  each  individual  of  Israel, 
without  exception  of  either  sex,  or  age,  or  spiritual  abilities :  "  But 
you  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of  priests."  Now  in  order  to  fulfil 
our  sacred  mission,  to  send  our  important  message  to  mankind,  it 
behooves  us  to  be  united  as  one  man;  to  be  linked  together  by  the 
ties  of  equal  views  concerning  religious  questions — by  uniformity  in 
our  sacred  customs,  in  our  form  of  worship,  and  religious  education. 
We  ought  to  have  a  uniform  system  for  our  schools,  synagogues, 
benevolent  societies — for  all  our  religious  institutions.  This  we 
need  to  have  throughout  the  world,  if  we  are  to  be  considered  as  the 
same  descendants  of  Israel,  the  same  disciples  of  Mosheh — if  we 
are  truly  to  fulfil  our  sacred  mission.  Our  fathers,  while  living  in 
the  Holy  Land,  were  commanded  to  appear  three  times  every  year 
at  the  place  selected  by  God  himself.  This  commandment  had  not 
for  its  sole  object  the  prescribed  sacrifices,  but  chiefly  it  was  calcu- 
lated to  uphold  a  friendly  union — a  religious  uniformity  among  all 
Israelites. 

Let  us  now  direct  our  attention  to  the  country  where  we  live,  and 
the  circumstances  in  which  we  are  placed.  The  majority  of  our 
congregations  in  this  country  have  been  established  but  a  few  years 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  21 

back;  they  are  generally  composed  of  the  most  negative  elements 
from  all  the  different  parts  of  Europe  and  elsewhere ;  they  have  been 
founded  and  are  now  governed  for  the  greater  part  by  men  of  no 
considerable  knowledge  of  our  religion,  and  generally  of  no  particu- 
lar zeal  for  our  common  cause.  The  consequence  of  all  this  is,  that 
many  congregations  have  no  solid  basis,  no  particular  stimulants  to 
urge  on  the  youth  to  a  religious  life,  and  no  nourishment  for  the 
spiritual  Israelite.  This  naturally  produces  an  enormous  amount  of 
indifference,  and  each  congregation  pursues  its  own  way,  has  its 
own  customs  and  mode  of  worship,  its  own  way  of  thinking 
about  religious  questions,  from  which  cause  it  then  results  that  one 
Jew  is  a  stranger  in  the  synagogue  of  the  other  Jew.  It  is  a  pity 
to  observe  that  any  man  who  is  so  happy  as  to  have  a  license  fnhop) 
to  kill  from  some  unknown  person,  can  become  the  minister  of  a 
congregation,  and  the  teacher  of  the  youth,  without  any  proof  of  his 
knowledge  of  religion,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  of  his 
conduct  as  a  Jew.  I  will  be  silent  about  what  is  called  DDn 
I  will  be  silent  about  the  pi,  though  our  wise  men  teach 
Dnoi;  porn*  "?K  pc?npi  pto^i  3*02  *p^  "  Whoever  is  not  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  divorces  and  marriages,  shall  not  have  anything  to 
do  with  them."  I  will  be  silent  about  the  whole  casuistic  theology, 
and  ask  only  the  community  at  large :  "  What  will  become  of  our 
synagogues? — what  of  our  youth?  "  You  see  we  have  no  system  for 
our  worship,  nor  for  our  ministry  and  schools,  and  we  are  therefore 
divided  in  as  many  fragments  as  there  are  congregations  in  North 
America.  It  is  lamentable,  but  true,  that  if  we  do  not  unite  our- 
selves betimes  to  devise  a  practicable  system  for  the  ministry  and 
religious  education  at  large ;  if  we  do  not  take  care  that  better 
educated  men  fill  the  pulpit  and  the  schoolmaster's  chair ;  if  we  do 
not  stimulate  all  the  congregations  to  establish  good  schools,  and  to 
institute  a  reform  in  their  synagogues  on  modern  Jewish  principles, 
the  house  of  the  Lord  will  be  desolate,  or  nearly  so,  in  less  than  ten 
years,  and  the  zeal  of  the  different  Christian  missionaries  will  be 
sufficient  to  make  among  us  a  large  number  of  unprincipled  infidels. 
It  needs  no  prophetic  spirit  to  read  this  horrible  future  in  the  present 
circumstances.  I  lay  down  these  lines  before  the  throne  of  history 
as  a  solemn  protest  against  the  spirit  of  separate  action  and  of  in- 


22  VlEWS   ON    THE    SYNOD 

differentism  which  has  taken  hold  on  so  many  noble  minds  of  our 
brethren,  and  I  proclaim  before  the  whole  world,  before  the  present 
and  future,  my  sincere  conviction  that  now  something  must  be  done 
to  defend  and  maintain  our  sacred  faith.  Nor  is  it  too  late ;  every- 
thing can  be  done  if  we  are  all  united  before  God. 

But  who  are  the  men  that  shall  lay  the  corner-stone  to  this  re- 
union? Are  not  the  ministers  of  Israel  those  who  must  take  the 
first  step?  Is  not  the  spiritual  welfare  of  Israel  entrusted  into  their 
hands?  Are  they  not  responsible  for  it,  if  coming  generations 
should  be  corrupted  through  their  neglect?  Are  not  included  in  this 
class  the  pious  laymen  who  sigh  over  the  downfall  of  the  ancient 
customs  and  forms,  without  the  establishment  of  the  modern  ones? 
Shall  we  not  include  those  learned  laymen  who  mourn  to  see  how 
some  people  in  their  ignorance  sanctify  the  profane,  but  profane  the 
holy?  Yea,  it  is  the  duty  of  all  those  to  unite  themselves,  and  work 
for  the  reunion  of  all  the  congregations.  I  call  on  you  in  the  name 
of  our  God :  "  Be  firm  and  strengthen  yourselves  for  the  sake  of 
our  people."  Arise,  ye  men  of  piety  and  wisdom,  ye  shepherds,  ye 
fathers  of  Israel,  let  us  all  meet.  Vim  vh  t?'K;  let  us  first  take 
counsel  what  should  be  done,  and  how  it  must  be  done ;  let  us 
amicably  consider  what  we  ought  to  do  as  men  and  Israelites  for 
the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  present  and  coming  generations;  fet  us 
earnestly  deliberate  on  a  plan  to  unite  all  Jews  to  defend  and  main- 
tain their  sacred  religion  for  the  promotion  of  the  glory  of  God 
and  the  bliss  of  Israel!  I  call  upon  all  my  honored  friends,  both 
ministers  and  laymen,  and  all  who  have  an  interest  in  the  promul- 
gation of  God's  law :  come,  let  us  be  assembled  in  order  to  become 
united!  Exercise  all  your  influence  on  your  friends  and  acquaint- 
ances, to  bring  together  all  men  of  zeal  and  piety,  of  wisdom  and 
knowledge,  to  consider  what  should  be  done  for  the  union,  welfare 

and  progress  of  Israel And  may  God,  the  great  Father  of 

all,  unite  and  bless  the  house  of  Israel !  May  He  enlighten  all  men 
with  the  shining  light  of  truth,  be  gracious  to  all  that  seek  Him,  and 
merciful  to  all  that  have  forsaken  Him.  Amen. 

ISAAC  WISE,  D.  D., 
Rabbi  of  Albany. 

ALBANY,  Qth  day  of  Marcheshvan,  5609.  A.  M, 

[From  "  The  Occident,"  Pec.   1848,  pp.   431  -435. ] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  23 

PHILIPPSON,  A  YEAR  LATER  (1849). 

A  synod  must  be  established.  Sufficient  matter  will  present  itself 
for  its  consideration.  Its  principal  work  will  be  the  formulating  of 
the  general  truths  of  Judaism.  The  function  of  the  synod  will  be 
the  same  as  that  of  the  old  Synhedrin.  At  a  time  when  the  world 
shows  its  teeth  to  the  Jews  we  must  have  settled  and  fixed  principles 
by  which  to  be  guided,  not  only  for  the  present  but  for  the  future. 
Judaism  must  be  protected  against  those  disturbing  elements  which 
are  arrayed  against  it. 

Its  work  will  be  largely  dogmatic.  This  is  apt  to  frighten  people. 
True,  many  imagine  that  Judaism  has  no  dogmas.  This,  however, 
is  a  fallacy ;  as  soon  as  the  philosophical  spirit  entered  Judaism,  dog- 
matism entered  it,  as  witness  the  systems  of  Saadia,  Maimonides, 
Albo,  etc.  It  may,  however,  be  said,  "  Dogmatism  is  a  fettering 
of  the  spirit."  True;  but  since  we  have  cast  aside  all  restraint  as 
regards  form,  we  must  nevertheless  retain  some  restricting  element. 
Without  this  no  community  can  exist.  As  soon  as  this  restricting 
element  becomes  burdensome  it  can  be  cast  off.  This  is  the  work 
of  the  synod.  Therefore  it  is  a  necessity,  and  it  will  come  to  pass 
if  not  this  year,  the  next  year  or  some  following  year.  That  does 
not  signify.  Only  if  our  premises  were  wrong  would  our  conclu- 
sions be  false.9 

9  DIE  SYNODE  UND  DIE  GEGENWART. 

....  Aber  eine  Synode  muss  zu  Stande  Gebracht  warden.  Sie  wird  manch- 
erlei  zu  thun  haben,  das  Hauptwerk  wird  sein ;  die  Hauptprinzipien  des 
Judenthums,  so  fesl:  diese  auch  an  sich  sind,  feierlich  zu  verkunden,  um  der 
kommenden  Zeit  die  Parole  zu  geben,  um  die  sie  sich  zu  schaaren.  Die 
Synode  hat  jetzt  dasselbe  Werk  zu  vollbringen,  was  unsere  Vater  in  den 
nachsten  Jahrhunderten  nach  der  Zerstorung  Jerusalems,  das  Synedrion  zu 
Tiberias,  vollbrachte,  das  Judenthum  irgendwie  fester  zu  gestalten  fur  die 
Zeit,  die  da  kommt,  gegen  die  Auflosenden  Elemente,  die  auf  dasselbe  los- 
sturmen  werden.  Damals  bedurfte  es  der  Jahrhunderte,  um  es  zu  konsolidiren, 
warum  sollte  es  nicht  jetzt  der  Jahrzehende  bedurfen?  Und  all  die  Versuche, 
die  bis  jetzt  gemacht  worden  sind,  sind  Vorbereitungen,  die  allmalig  zu  einem 
bestimmten  Ziele  fiihren.  Wir  sind  durchaus  nicht  besorgt.  Grade  je  mehr 
auf  religiosem  Gebiete  das  ausserste  Extrem  sein  Haupt  erhebt,  desto  eher 
werden  sich  im  Kampfe  die  Streiter  fur  die  Religion  Israels  zusammenfinden, 
desto  eher  die  Massen  sich  wieder  um  sie  schaaren 

In  einer  Zeit,  wo  eine  Welt  sich  feindlich  gegeniiberstellt,  da  muss  eine 
Masse,  wie  die  Juden  sind,  ein  Bestimmtes,  genau  Artikulirtes  haben,  an  und 


24  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

in  dem  sie  leben  kann.  Ein  solches  Werk  muss  auch  das  Judenthum  fur  die 
kommende  Zeit  haben,  um  an  und  in  ihm,  selbst  den  feindlichsten  Elementen 
gegeniiber,  bestehen  zu  konnen.  Und  das  soil  ihm  die  Synode — nicht  in 
einem,  nicht  in  Zwei  Jahren,  in  Jahrzehenden  schaffen.  Darf  man  einen 
Vorausblick  wagen,  so  wird  ein  solches  Werk  fiir  die  Zukunft  insonders  ein 
dogmatisches  sein.  Man  erschrecke  nicht  davor.  Man  hat  sich  immer  etwas 
gewusst,  dass  das  Judenthum  keine  Dogmatik  habe.  Verstand  man  dies  so, 
dass  die  Dogmen  des  Judenthums  nicht  genau  durchgearbeitet,  nicht  sorgfaltig 
artikulirt  und  gegliedert  waren,  so  hatte  man  Recht.  Aber  wozu  auch  eine 
Dogmatik  in  einer  Zeit,  die  sich  um  die  Lehre  gar  nicht  kiimmerte,  sondern 
der  allein  das  Formgesetz  Wichtigkeit  hatte?  Meinte  man  aber,  dass  das 
Judenthum  gar  keine  Dogmen  habe,  so  war  dies  nur  eine  Selbsttauschung, 
welche  die  neuere  Kritik,  die  Pantheistische  Philosophic  hinlanglich  auf- 
gedeckt  hat.  Sobald  der  philosophische  Geist  im  Judenthume  sich  Luft 
machte,  war  auch  die  Dogmatik  da,  Saadias,  Maimonides,  Albo,  u.  s.  w.  sind 
Zeugen ;  man  dachte  so  fort  sogar  an  genau  gegliederte  Glaubens  bekenntnisse, 
Ueberhaupt  die  prinzipielle  Durcharbeitung  einer  Lehre — mogen  die  Resultate 
sein,  welche  sie  wollen — ist  Dogmatik.  Wie  die  Aufgabe  des  Prophetismus 
die  Belebung  der  mosaischen  Lehre  und  des  mosaischen  Sittengesetzes  in 
ihren  Allgemeinen  Parteien  war,  die  Aufgabe  des  Talmudismns  die  Durch- 
arbeitung und  Feststellung  der  Lebensformen,  die  Aufgabe  des  Rabbinismus 
die  Aufrecht-haltung  der  Autoritat  des  Gegebenen;  so  kann  nur  die  wahre 
und  wesentliche  Aufgabe  des  zukiinftigen  Werkes,  also  der  Synodalbestreb- 
ungen  die  Dogmatik  sein.  Dafiir  spricht  der  Geist  der  Zeit,  dafur  die  Natur 
des  Kampfes,  fur  den  das  Werk  geschaffen  wird,  und  der  im  kultuslosen, 
geistigen  Heidenthume  sein  Element  hat.  Abermals  wird  man  erschrecken : 
ist  Dogmatik  nicht  Fessel  des  Geistes?  Haben  wir  nicht  eben  die  Fessel  der 
Form  gebrochen,  oder  sind  noch  darin  begriffen,  und  wir  sollen  uns  eine  neue 
Fessel  auflegen?  Nun,  etwas  Fessel,  etwas  Fesselndes  muss  jede  Gemein- 
samkeit  haben,  denn  ohne  jenes  kann  diese  gar  nicht  bestehen.  Alles 
Gemeinsame  ist  das,  worin  die  Individualitaten  aufgehen,  dem  sich  die  Indi- 
vidualitaten  hingeben.  Insonders  aber  muss  allerdings  eine  Sturmzeit  auf 
einen  Wall,  einen  Damm,  eine  Mauer  treffen,  und  die  sich  bergen  hinter  der 
Mauer  miissen  den  Schutz  mit  dem  Opfer  von  etwas  freier  Aussicht  erkaufen. 
Kommt  die  Zeit,  wo  das  Bindende  eben  eine  Fessel,  ein  Joch,  eine  Biirde 
wird,  da  fehlt  es  an  der  Kraft,  ihrer  ledig  zu  werden,  niemals,  und  noch 
keine  Mauer,  kein  Zaum  (;PD)  widerstand  dem  Andrang  von  innen,  wenn  er 
auch  Jahrtausende  dem  Andrang  von  Aussen  widerstand. 

Dies  ist  das  Werk,  die  Aufgabe  der  Synode.  Daraus  geht  ihre  Nothwen- 
digkeit  hervor.  Darum  wird  sie  auch  zu  Stande  kommen.  Wenn  nicht  in 
diesem,  doch  im  nachsten  Jahre.  Wenn  nicht  im  nachsten  doch  im  nach- 
nachsten,  oder  einem  der  folgenden.  Das  macht  Nichts  aus.  Nur  wenn 
unsere  Voraussetzungen  (Pramissen)  irrig  waren  wiirde  unsere  Folgerung 
falsch  sein. 

[Allgemcine  Zeitung   des  Judenthums,   June    n,    1849,    No.    24,    pp.    313-316.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  25 

CALL  FOR  SYNOD  BY  DR.  JACOB  AUERBACH,  LEOPOLD  BEER, 
DR.  FORMSTECHER,  MOSES  B.  GOLDSMIDTH,  DR.  J.  M.  JOST, 
LOUIS  LOTMAR,  RABBI  LEOPOLD  STEIN,  DR.  JACOB  WEIL 
IN  1849. 

To  the  Jewish  Religious  Communities  of  Germany: 

The  thought  has  taken  root  in  Judaism,  that  cooperation,  organ- 
ization and  concentration  shall  take  place  within  and  between  the 
various  communities,  so  that  the  integrity  of  the  communities  may 
be  maintained,  that  religious  progress  may  be  furthered  and  that  our 
faith  may  be  guarded.  Thus,  without  infringing  upon  any  one's 
individual  rights,  religion  would  obtain  a  new  lease  of  life,  communal 
affairs  would  be  regulated,  divine  services  would  be  held  in  accord- 
ance with  the  times,  and  the  self-consciousness  of  the  Jewish  religious 
community  would  receive  a  new  impulse?  The  people  whojttow  have 
a  voice  in  their  own  government  should  and  will  assert  their  rights  in 
religious  affairs.  Consequently,  in  order  to  bring  about  the  above- 
mentioned  results,  an  assembly  for  this  purpose  must  not  be  composed 
entirely  of  rabbis  and  preachers.  Guided  by  these  thoughts,  a  num- 
ber of  men  gathered  together  on  August  31  of  last  year  at  Frankfurt- 
on-the-Main  to  appoint  a  committee  to  arrange  for  a  general  Jewish 
synod.  They  decided  to  issue  invitations  to  individuals  and  com- 
munities to  cooperate  in  bringing  about  a  preliminary  meeting. 
This  meeting  was  held  on  the  23d  and  24th  of  October  of  last 
year  and  consisted  of  68  members  among  whom  were  rabbis, 
preachers,  heads  of  congregations  and  professional  men.  The  pro- 
ceedings were  brought  to  a  close  in  three  sessions,  during  which 
matters  were  discussed  with  a  printed  outline  as  a  basis,  from  which 
the  conference  picked  out  the  most  important  points. 

The  results  of  the  proceedings  were  intrusted  to  the  undersigned 
committee,  which  was  to  issue  an  appeal  to  the  Jewish  communities. 
The  reason  that  this  has  not  already  been  done  is  partly  on  account 
of  the  delayed  re-reading  and  partly  because  the  fundamental  laws, 
which  contain  the  basic  rights  for  all  classes  of  German  people, 
including  the  Jews,  have  not  yet  been  completely  introduced.  We 
are  of  the  opinion  that  as  long  as  these  new  provisions  have  not  yet 
obtained  full  sway  everywhere,  as  the  relations  between  the  State 
and  the  individual  religious  communities  are  not  sufficiently  clear, 


26  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

and  as  the  Israelites  of  the  different  parts  of  Germany  cannot  attain 
a  clear  idea  of  the  claims  and  needs  of  the  religious  communities, 
the  calling  of  a  synod  at  present  would  not  lead  to  the  desired  end. 
In  order,  however,  that  the  connecting  link  between  the  prelimi- 
nary meeting  and  the  synod  to  be  called  later  may  not  be  weakened 
and  in  order  to  keep  alive  the  interest  in  synodal  concerns,  we,  there- 
fore, announce  to  the  Jewish  communities  the  following  declarations 
and  resolutions  of  the  preliminary  conference,  on  the  basis  of  which 
the  synod  is  to  be  convened. 

I.  The  purpose  for  convening  a  synod  was  unanimously  recog- 
nized by  the  conference. 

II.  Concerning  the  conception  of  the  synod,  the  following  wa*s 
confirmed  by  a  large  majority.     The  synod  is  a  central  organization 
chosen  by  the  congregations*  and  associations.     At  legally  appointed 
sessions,  Hie  synod  is  to  deliberate  upon  religious  and  communal 
questions  which  concern  Jews  as  a  whole  as  well  as  the  bodies 
represented.     The  synod  is  to  regulate  these  questions  by  decrees. 

In  order  to  avoid  misunderstanding,  the  conference  empowered 
us  to  add  the  following  explanation,  namely  that  the  words  "  und 
durch  Beschliisse  ordnet "  (regulate  matters  by  decrees)  mean  only 
that  the  synod  is  to  put  its  declarations  in  the  form  of  decrees  which, 
however,  are  not  to  have  any  binding  force.  It  is  only  the  esteem 
and  moral  weight  of  the  synod  that  are  to  influence  the  congre- 
gations. They  are  to  accept  voluntarily  the  synod's  declarations  and 
by  carrying  them  out  into  practice  give  them  force. 

Likewise,  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  explain  the  word  "  Genossen- 
schaften  "  as  it  is  used  in  the  report  of  the  conference.  By  this  is 
not  meant  brotherhoods  or  such  religious  societies  as  are  formed 
within  the  communities  to  perform  certain  religious  practices  or 
labors  of  love.  What  is  meant  is  independent,  religious  societies 
legally  constituted,  which  regulate  their  affairs  in  a  manner  not 
in  accordance  with  that  of  the  communities  as  a  whole. 

III.  As  regards  the  character  of  the  synod,  the  conference,  by  an 
overwhelming  majority,  declared  as  follows:     The  synod  shall  be 
called  as  a  representative  body  of  Israel. 

This  decision,  according  to  the  previous  discussions  is  to  be 
understood  as  follows :  The  synod  is  not  to  be  convened  as  repre- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  27 

sentative  of  a  specific  tendency  in  Judaism  but  of  Judaism  as  a  whole 
and  in  the  assembly,  it  is  hoped,  all  views  will  find  expression. 

IV.  As  regards  the  choosing  of  delegates  to  the  synod,  the  fol- 
lowing was  decided: 

(a)  Every  Israelite,  who  is  of  age,  is  entitled  to  vote  in  the  con- 
gregation to  which  he  belongs. 

(b)  Every  Jewish  religious  congregation  or  religious  organization 
is  entitled  to  send  one  representative  to  the  synod.     Congregations 
containing  over  one  hundred,  who  are  elligible  to  vote,  have  the 
right   to   send   one   additional   representative   for   every   additional 
hundred. 

(c)  The  voting  is  to  take  place  under  the  supervision  of  the  board 
of  directors  or  of  a  committee. 

(d)  Any  reputable  Jew,  who  is  of  age,  is  eligible  as  a  delegate. 
It  may  be  explained  in  addition,  that  a  number  of  communities, 

especially  small  ones,  may  unite  to  choose  a  representative  in  com- 
mon. The  delegate  chosen  must  not  of  necessity  be  a  member  of  the 
community  which  elects  him ;  he  may  be  chosen  from  any  Jewish 
community. 

We  must  also  remark  that  the  word  "  selbstandig"  (independent) 
was,  in  the  original  plan,  used  in  connection  with  remarks  (a) 
and  (d).  But  as  in  the  opinion  of  one  member,  the  interpretation 
of  this  word  might  cause  strife  and  confusion  in  the  communities, 
the  president  decided  and  the  conference  agreed  that  such  details  be 
left  to  the  committee.  We  thought  it  proper  to  leave  out  this  word 
entirely. 

V.  Concerning  the  time  and  place  for  holding  the  synod,  the 
following  was  agreed  upon : 

(a)  The  first  synod  is  to  be  held  in  the  spring  of   1849.     The 
time  for  the  holding  of  subsequent  synods  is  to  be  decided  by  the 
preceding  synod. 

(b)  The  synod  shall  last  fourteen  days. 

(c)  The  first  synod  is  to  be  held  at  Frankfurt-on-the-Main,  the 
place  for  subsequent  meeting  to  be  decided  by  the  synod  itself. 

VI.  As  regards  the  expenses  the  following  was  decided  upon : 
(a)   The  expenses  of  each  delegate  are  to  be  paid  by  the  body 

sending  him. 


28  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

(b)  The  expenses  of  the  synod  are  to  be  met  by  voluntary  con- 
tributions. 

We  reserve  the  right  for  ourselves  to  make  appeals  in  accordance 
with  remark  (b),  for  the  creation  of  a  synodal  fund.  We  will  only 
note  here  that  several  communities  have  voluntarily  offered  con- 
tributions. If  individuals  in  the  various  communities  would  feel 
themselves  invited  to  take  signatures  for  future  contributions,  when 
the  proper  moment  will  arrive,  matters  would  be  greatly  expedited. 

VII.  The  conference  finally  decided  to  appoint  a  standing  com- 
mittee for  the  first  general  synod  and  the  undersigned  were  named 
as  such. 

Upon  this  committee  the  conference  enjoined  the  duty  of  making 
all  preparations  for  the  coming  synod.  As  soon  as  the  proper  mo- 
ment comes,  we  will  joyfully  and  with  devotion  to  the  good  cause, 
undertake  those  duties  and  we  will  take  care  to  convene  the  synod 
at  the  most  opportune  time. 

Our  opinion  of  the  matter  has  not  changed.  To-day,  as  formerly, 
we  recognize  the  pressing  need  of  a  free  but  yet  united  synodal 
organization.  Only  in  order  to  create  such  an  institution  with 
greater  assifrance  of  success,  are  we  of  the  opinion  that  it  should 
not  be  organized  amidst  such  conditions  as  will  make  it  impossible 
for  so  many  communities  of  the  German  fatherland  to  share  m 
the  common  task.  Meanwhile  we  shall  be  looking  forward  to 
the  expressions  of  opinion,  either  in  public  or  by  direct  communica- 
tions, of  those  who  have  been  assembled  here  as  well  as  of  everyone 
who  feels  a  warm  interest  in  the  maintenance  of  Jewish  communal 
life.  May  the  matter  be  discussed  as  much  as  possible,  agitated  in 
the  congregations  and  the  district  assemblies,  so  that  the  needs,  de- 
sires and  views  may  become  known.  Thus  will  we  be  able  to  decide 
what  must  be  done  in  this  weighty  matter.10 

FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN,  Feb.,  1849. 

10  AN    DIE    ISRAELITISCHEN    RELIGIONSGEMEINDEN    IN 
DEUTSCHLAND. 

Es  hat  in  neuerer  Zeit  in  unserer  Mitte  mehr  und  mehr  der  Gedanke  Wurzel 
gcfasst,  wie  nothwendig  auf  dem  Gebiete  des  Judenthums,  zur  Erhaltung 
der  Gemeinden,  zur  Forderung  des  religiosen  Fortschrittes  zur  Bewahrung 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  29 

des  Glaubens,  ein  moglichst  einheitliches  Zusammenwirken  in  und  zwischen 
den  Gemeinden,  ein  organisirendes  Verfassungswesen  und  insbesondere  ein 
geeigneter  Zentralpunkt  erscheine,  von  welchem  aus,  ohne  der  Freiheit  der 
Einzelnen  zu  nahe  zu  treten,  das  religiose  Leben  seine  Erfrischung,  das  Ge- 
meindeleben  seine  Ordnung,  der  Gottesdienst  seine  zeitgemasse  Gestaltung 
und  das  Selbstbewusstsein  der  israelitischen  Religionsgesellschaft  einen  neuen 
Aufschwung  erhalten  moge.  Dass  dieses  nun  nicht  mehr  durch  eine  bios  aus 
Rabbinen  und  Predigern  zusammengesetzte  Versammlung  bewirkt  werden 
konne,  indem  der  zur  Herrschaft  gelangte  Volks-  nnd  Gemeindewille  auch  auf 
religiosem  Gebiete  sich  geltend  machen  will  und  soil,  ist  ebenso  gewiss  und 
unzweifelhaft,  als  auf  der  andern  Seite  vorziiglich  in  der  Gegenwart,  der 
machtigen  Zeitbewegung  und  der  neuerrungenen  Religionsfreiheit  gegeniiber, 
die  Nothwendigkeit  sich  um  so  dringender  herausstellt,  auf  Mittel  zu  sinnen, 
wie  nach  den  Grundsatzen  der  Freiheit  und  Gerechtigkeit  die  verschiedenen 
religiosen  Richtungen,  innerhalb  desselben  Gemeindeverbandes,  nebenein- 
ander  bestehen  und  ihren  Bediirfnissen  Rechnung  getragen  werden  konne. 
Von  diesen  Gedanken  geleitet,  hatten  sich  am  31.  August  zu  Frankfurt  am 
Main  mehrere  Manner  zur  Bildung  eines  Komite's  zur  Vorbereitung  einer  all- 
gemeinen  israelitischen  Synode  vereinigt,  und  beschlossen,  zu  diesem  Behufe 
durch  eine  sowohl  an  einzelne  Manner  besonders,  als  offentliche  an  die  Ge- 
meinden zu  richtende  Einladung  eine  vorberathende  Synodeversammlung  in 
genannter  Stadt  zu  veranstalten.  Diese  Versammlung  wurde  am  23.  und  24. 
Oktober  v.  J.  abgehalten,  und  es  haben  sich  an  derselben  mehrere  Mitglieder 
aus  versehiedenen  israelitischen  Oberrathen,  Rabbinen,  Prediger,  viele  Ge- 
meindevorsteher,  Gelehrte  verschiedenen  Faches,  in  Ganzen  68  israelitische 
Manner  aus  der  Nahe  und  Ferae,  betheiligt.  Die  Verhandlungen  wurden 
in  drei  Sitzungen  zu  Ende  gebracht  und  auf  Grund  einer  gedruckten  Vorlage 
gepflogen,  aus  welcher  sich  die  Versammlung  die  ihr  dringlichst  scheinenden 
Punkte  durch  Berathung  und  Beschlussnahme  aneigncte. 

Das  Ergebniss  der  Verhandlungen  wurde  der  tinterfertigte  Ausschuss 
beauftragt,  den  israelitischen  Gemeinden  in  einer  Ansprache  mitzutheilen, 
und  wenn  dieses  bisher  nicht  geschehen  ist,  so  wolle  man  den  Grund  hierzu 
in  keinen  andern  Umstanden  suchen,  als  theils  in  der  verzogerten  zweiten 
Lesung,  theils  in  der  zur  Zeit  noch  vollstandig  bewirkten  Einfuhrung  der 
deutschen  Grundreehte,  in  welchen  der  neue  Rechtsboden  fiir  alle  Zustande 
des  deutschen  Volkes,  also  auch  fiir  die  judisch-religiosen,  gegeben  ist.  Wir 
sind  namlich  der  Ansicht,  dass  so  lange  diese  so  tief  in  alle  bestehenden  Ver- 
haltnisse  eingreifenden  neuen  Bestimmungen  nicht  iiberall  voile  Rechtskraft 
erhalten  haben,  somit  auch  das  Verhaltniss  des  Staates  zu  den  einzelnen 
Religiosensgesellschaften  nicht  in  der  nothigen  Klarheit  hervortritt,  auch  die 
Israeliten  der  verschiedenen  Landestheile  Deutschlands  nicht  zur  klaren  Ein- 
sicht  ihrer  Auspriiche  und  Beditrfnisse  auf  dem  Gebiete  der  Religionsgemeinde 
gelangen  konnen,  und  deshalb  die  Berufung  einer  Synode  im  jetztigen  Zeit- 
punkte  wohl  nicht  zu  dem  erwiinschten  Ziele  fiihren  mochte. 

Um  jedoch   das   Band   zwischen   der  vorberathenden   Synodalversammlung 


30  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

• 

und  der  spater  zu  berufenden  Synode  nicht  zu  schwachen  tmd  das  Interesse 
an  der  Synodalangelegenheit  lebendig  zu  erhalten,  theilen  wir  hierdurch  den 
israelitischen  Gemeinden  folgende.  Erklarungen  und  Beschliisse  der  Vorver- 
sammlung  mit,  auf  deren  Grunde  die  Synode  spater  zusammentreten  soil, 
unter  Beifiigung  der  nothwendig  scheinenden,  den  Protokollen  entnommenen 
Motive  und  Erlauterungen : 

(1)  Die  Zweckmassigkeit  einer  zu  berufenden  Synode  ivurde  von  der  Ver- 
sammlung  einstimmig  anerkannt. 

(2)  Ueber  den  Begriff  der  Synode  wurde  mit  grosser  Mehrheit  Folgendes 
festgestellt :     Die  israelitische  Synode  ist  ein  von  den  Gemeinden  und  Genos- 
senschaften    selbstgewahltes    Gesammtorgan,    welches    die    dabei    betheiligten 
Gemeinden  und  Genossenschaften  vertritt  und  in  gesetzlich  geordneten  period- 
ischen  Sitzungen  die  Angelegenheiten  des  gesammten  israelitischen  Religions- 
und  Gemeindewesens,  so  wie  die  der  vertretenen  Gesammtheiten  Berathung 
nimmt  und  durch  Beschliisse  ordnet. 

Die  Versammlung  hat  uns  beauftragt,  znr  Verhiitung  von  Missverstand- 
nissen,  die  Erklarung  beizufugen,  dass  die  Worte  "  und  durch  Beschliisse 
ordnet "  lediglich  den  Sinn  haben,  dass  die  Synode  ihre  Erklarungen  in  der 
Form  von  Beschliissen  giebt,  ohne  dass  dadurch  irgend  ein  bindender  Zwang 
entstehen  soil.  Es  ist  nur  das  Ansehen  und  das  moralische  Gewicht  der 
Synode,  was  die  Gemeinden  bewegen  soil,  sich  freiwillig  ihren  Erklarungen 
anzuschliessen  und  durch  praktische  Ausfiihrung  ihren  Beschliissen  Kraft 
und  Nachdruck  zu  verleihen. 

Ebenso  haben  wir  im  Auftrage  der  Versammlung  den  Ausdruck  "  Genossen- 
schaften "  dahin  zu  erklaren,  dass  unter  diesem  Worte  keineswegs  Briider- 
schaften,  d.  h.  solche  religiose  Vereine  zu  verstehen  seien,  die  innerhalb  der 
Gemeinde  zu  gewissen  religiosen  Uebungen  oder  Liebeswerken  sich  vereinigt, 
sondern  selbstandige  religiose  Vereine,  welche  sich  statutenmassig  und  zu 
dem  Zwecke  konstituirt  haben,  ihre  religiosen  Angelegenheiten  in  einer  Weise 
zu  ordnen,  die  von  der  in  den  betreffenden  Gemeinden  vorherrschenden 
Richtung  abweicht. 

(3)  Ueber  den  Charakter  der  Synode  hat  die  Versammlung  mit  iiberwie- 
gender  Majoritat  sich  dahin  ausgesprochen :  die  Synode  soil  als  ein  Gesammt- 
organ der  Israeliten  berufen  werden. 

Dieser  Beschluss  ist,  gemass  den  vorhergegangenen  Verhandlungen,  dahin 
zu  verstehen,  dass  die  Synode  nicht  als  die  Vertreterin  einer  einzelnen  Rich- 
tung im  Judenthume,  sondern  als  eine  allgemeine,  auf  welcher  es  hochst 
wunschenswerth  erscheint,  dass  alle  Ansichten  ihre  Vertretung  finden,  berufen 
werden  moge. 

(4)  Ueber  die  Wahl  cur  Synode  wurde  folgendes  beschlossen : 

(a)  Wahlberechtigt  ist  jeder  volljahrige  Israelit  in  der  Gemeinde,  welcher 
er  angehort; 

(b)  Jede  israelitische   Religionsgemeinde  oder   Religionsgenossenschaft  ist 
berechtigt,  einen  Stellvertreter  zur  Synode  zu  schicken.     Gemeinden  von  iiber 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  31 

hundert  Wahlberechtigten  haben  das  Recht,  fur  je  hundert  Wahler  mehr  je 
einen  Vertreter  mehr  zu  senden; 

(c)  Die    Wahlen   geschehen    unter    Aufsicht    der   Vorstande,    oder    eines 
Komite's. 

(d)  Wahlbar  ist  jeder  unbescholtene,  volljahrige  Israelit. 

Hier  fiigen  wir  die  erlauternde  Bemerkung  bei,  dass  mehrere,  insbesondere 
kleinere  Gemeinden  sich  vereinigen  konnen,  um  einen  Vertreter  gemeinsam  zu 
wahlen;  ferner,  dass  der  zu  erwahlende  Vertreter  nicht  Mitglied  der  be- 
treffenden  Gemeinde  oder  Gemeinden  sein  musse,  sondern  auch  aus  jeder 
andern  israelitischen  Gemeinde  gewahlt  werden  konne. 

Auch  mussen  wir  bemerken,  dass  bei  den  Punkten  (a)  und  (d)  in  der 
Vorlage  sich  das  Wort  "  selbststandig "  befunden  hatte.  Auf  die  Bemerkung 
eines  Mitgliedes,  jedoch,  dass  die  Aufnahme  dieses  Wortes  in  den  Gemeinden 
Streit  und  Verwirrung  herbeifiihren  wiirde,  schlug  der  President  vor,  und 
die  Versammlung  stimmte  bei,  hieriiber  das  Nahere  der  Redaktionskommis- 
sion  zu  iiberlassen.  Wir  hielten  es  nun  fur  geeignet,  jenes  Wort  ganzlich 
wegzulassen. 

(5)  Ueber  Zeit  und  Ort  der  Synode  wurde  beschlossen : 

(a)  Die  Zeit  der  Synode  ist  fur  die  zuerst  zu  berufende  das  Friihjahr  1849. 
Die  Zeit  der  folgenden  Synode  bestimmt  immer  die  vorhergehende  selbst. 

(b)  Die  Dauer  der  Synode  ist  vierzehn  Tage. 

(c)  Der  Ort  der  Synode  ist  fur  die  zuerst  zu  berufende  Frankfurt  am  Main ; 
spater  immer  von  der  Synode  selbst  zu  bestimmen. 

In  Betreff  des  Beschlusses  (a)  beziehen  wir  uns  auf  die  Eingangs  erwahn- 
ten  Umstande,  welche  es  rathsam  erscheinen  lassen,  fur  die  Berufung  der 
Synode  den  geeignetern  Zeitpunkt  abzuwarten. 

(6)  Ueber  den.  Kostenpunkt  wurde  Folgendes  beschlossen : 

(a)  Die  Kosten  des  Synodalbesuches  bestreitet  jede  Wahlgesammtheit  ftir 
ihren  Vertreter ; 

(b)  Die  Kosten  der  Synode  werden  durch  freiwillige  Beitrage  aufgebracht. 
Wir  behalten  es  uns  fur  die  spater  zu  erlassende  Ansprache  vor,  auf  den 

Beschluss  (b)  resp.  Bildung  einer  Synodalkasse  zuruckzukommen,  und 
wollen  hier  nur  bemerken,  dass  uns  bereits  von  einigen  Gemeinden  unaufge- 
fordert  Geldbeitrage  angeboten  worden  sind.  Wiirden  sich  nun  in  verschie- 
denen  Gemeinden  einzelne  Manner  jetzt  schon  aufgefordert  fiihlen,  Listen 
zu  entwerfen  und  Einzeichnungen  von  eventuellen  Beitragen  zu  veranlassen, 
so  wiirde  das,  wenn  der  rechte  Moment  erscheint,  der  Sache  gewiss  hochst 
forderlich  werden. 

(7)  Die  Versammlung  hat  endlich  beschlossen,  einen  standigen  Ausschuss 
an  hiesigem  Orte  fur  die  erste  allgemeine  israelitische  Synode  zu  ernennen, 
und  hat  dazu  die  Unterzeichneten  erwahlt. 

Diesem  Ausschusse  hat  die  Versammlung  die  Verpflichtung  auferlegt,  alle 
Vorarbeiten  fur  die  zu  berufende  Synode  zu  ubernehmen.  Wir  werden  uns 
nun,  sobald  der  rechte  Zeitpunkt  eingetreten  sein  wird,  mit  Freude  und  mit 


32  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

WISE  ON   SYNOD,  1856. 

Let  us,  first,  repeat  the  premises,  from  which  we  start  in  our 
reasoning  on  this  subject.  There  can  be  no  Judaism  without  the 
observation  of  the  biblical  laws.  None  has  a  right  to  dispense  with 
them.  The  biblical  laws  are  impracticable  unless  they  are  ex- 
pounded. The  Jewish  standard  of  exegesis  in  regard  to  biblical 
laws,  and  the  precedents  guiding  us  in  our  decisions  are  in  the 
Talmud,  the  historical  development  of  the  Law  without  which  we 
not  only  depart  from  the  historical  basis  of  Judaism,  and  must  even- 
tually be  dissolved  into  diverging  sects,  but  are  also  without  any 
safe  guide  in  our  biblical  researches.  The  Talmud  contains  deci- 


aller  Hingebung  fur  die  gute  Sache  jenen  Arbeiten  tmterziehen,  und  den 
Moment  nicht  voriibergehen  lassen,  welcher  zur  Hervorrufung  der  Synode 
geeignet  erscheint.  Unsere  Ansicht  von  der  Sache  hat  sich  nicht  geandert. 
Heute  wie  friiher  erkennen  wir  fur  das  Judenthum  das  dringende  Zeitbedurf- 
niss  einer  freien  und  doch  vereinigenden  Synodalverfassung.  Nur  um  dieses 
Institut  mit  desto  grosserer  Sicherheit  in's  Leben  zu  rtifen,  halten  wir  es  fur 
gut,  den  Zeitpunkt  seiner  Begriindung  nicht  in  Verhaltnisse  zu  setzen,  welche 
es  so  vielen  Gemeinden  des  deutschen  Vaterlandes  noch  nicht  moglich  machen, 
sich  an  dem  gemeinsamen  Werke  zu  betheiligen.  Indessen  sehen  wir  schon 
jetzt  den  Meinungsausserungen  sowol  der  hier  versammelt  gewesenen  Manner, 
als  Aller,  die  fiir  die  Atifrechterhaltung  des  israelitischen  Gemeindelebens 
ein  warmes  Interesse  fiihlen,  entweder  in  den  offentlichen  Organen  des 
Judenthums  oder  in  unmittelbaren  Zuschriften  mit  Verlangen  entgegen. 
Moge  der  Gegenstand  moglichst  allseitig  besprochen,  in  den  Gemeinden 
erortet,  in  Bezirksversammlungen  zur  Anregung  gebracht  werden,  damit  die 
Ansichten,  Wiinsche  und  Bediirfnisse  sich  zu  erkennen  geben,  und  wir 
darnach  das  ermessen  konnen,  was  nach  der  ausgesprochenen  offentlichen 
Meinung  und  im  Interesse  des  Ganzen  in  dieser  wichtigen  Angelegenheit  ferner 
zu  geschehen  habe. 

FRANKFURT-AM-MAIN,  Feb.,  1849. 

DER  STANDIGE  AUSSCHUSS  FUR  DIE  ERSTE  ALLGEMEINE 

ISRAELITISCHE  SYNODE. 
DR.  JAKOB  AUERBACH.  LEOPOLD  BEER. 

DR.   FORMSTECHER.  MoSES  B.   GoLDSCHMIDT. 

DR.  I.  M.  JOST.  Louis  LOTMAR. 

RABBINER  LEOPOLD  STEIN.  DR.  JAKOB  WEIL. 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  No.    14,   April  2,    1849,  PP-    184-186.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  33 

sions  on  laws,  and  new  laws  from  the  different  sources,  decisions 
of  synods  and  decisions  of  schools ;  the  former  are  arbitrary  (  IJBJ 
n»;n )  or  based  upon  the  Bible,  Mishnah,  etc. ;  the  latter  are  only 
based  on  the  Bible,  Mishnah,  etc.,  by  the  thirteen  rules  of  interpre- 
tation. Every  student  at  any  time  has  the  right  of  correcting  the 
decision  of  a  school,  if  he  finds  it  incorrect  according  to  the  rules 
of  interpretation.  But  the  decisions  of  a  Synod  can  be  amended 
or  repealed  by  a  Synod  only.  This  is  the  historical  Jewish  method 
of  perpetual  reform  and  research  in  the  Law  of  God.  A  Synod  has 
the  right: 

First.  To  suspend  a  biblical  command  for  the  time  being,  if  it 
intends  to  preserve  the  rest. 

Second.  To  abolish  rabbinical  ordinances  which  are  not  prac- 
ticed, ntD£>Q  &AG?  fTHJ  which  are  in  conflict  with  the  just  demands 
of  the  time  [m  TiftrS  pSnnmn  nil  p«e>  nvn]  of  which  the  cause 
of  their  enactment  exists  no  longer,  [orta  tea]  or  which  no  longer 
support  the  idea  which  they  were  intended  to  embody. 

Third.  To  make  such  regulations  and  establish  such  customs  as 
are  subservient  to  maintain  the  unity,  forward  the  prosperity,  or 
elevate  the  dignity  of  Israel,  not  however,  in  contradiction  to  the 
Law  or  its  legal  consequences. 

We  pause  here  and  say:  we  challenge  the  most  orthodox  and 
most  learned  Talmudist  to  say,  that  there  is  one  word  in  the  above, 
not  strictly  according  to  Jewish  laws.  On  the  other  hand,  we  chal- 
lenge the  sincere  friends  of  reform  to  say  that  not  all  desirable  re- 
forms within  the  pale  of  Judaism  could  be  obtained  in  this  legal  and 
historical  way.  We  are  certain  that  none  will  successfully  contra- 
dict us.  The  cause  of  the  objection  against  these  principles  is  three- 
fold: 

1.  The  want  of  investigation  in  the  matter. 

2.  The  unwillingness  of  the  old  school  men  to  confess  that  there 
is  in  Judaism  a  legal  way  of  reform. 

3.  The  desire  of  many  of  our  friends  of  reform  to  stand  aloof 
from  their  brethren,  and  go  their  own  way  without  caring  for  the 
vast  majority  of  their  brethren. 

If  these  premises  are  admitted,  the  necessity,  benefit  and  legality 
of  a  Synod  must  be  understood  without  any  further  exposition. 


34  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

It  will  be  seen  from  what  is  said  above,  that  reforms  must  be  legal 
and  necessary;  and  first  must  be  decided  by  the  scholars,  ^  pK 
"piDUG?  taaN?  &6tf  and  the  latter  must  be  decided  by  the  people  or 
their  delegates;  therefore,  the  Synod  must  consist  of  ministers  and 
laymen.  The  cry  of  hierarchy,  spiritual  despotism,  bishops,  popes, 
and  other  such  nonsense,  which  some  raise  just  for  the  purpose  of 
having  something  to  say,  is  of  no  avail ;  for  if  the  vast  majority  of 
the  Synod  consist  of  lay  delegates,  their  cry  falls  at  once  to  the 
ground. 

This  is  the  only  legal  way  of  reform,  and  the  only  method  of 
reconciling  perpetually,  life  and  religion.  As  long  as  there  are  not 
Synods  organized  in  each  country,  and  these  Synods  do  not  elect 
again  their  delegates,  to  meet  at  least  every  ten  years  in  a  Grand 
Council  [n^HJ  p-nnjDl  in  any  part  of  the  world,  there  is  no  hope  for 
the  preservation  of  Israel's  union,  the  reconciliation  of  life  and  reli- 
gion, or  the  restoration  of  the  peace  and  concert  in  Israel. 

Besides  this,  it  must  be  considered  what  new  life  this  body  would 
bring  into  the  Synagogue,  what  beneficial  institutions  they  could 
establish  and  how  they  at  once  would  re-elevate  the  Synagogue  to 
that  high  position  which  it  once  occupied. 

"  Who  will  not  tell  shall  bear  his  iniquity  "  is  the  word  of  the 
Bible.  It  is  our  duty  to  tell,  to  show  again  and  again  the  remedy 
which  should  be  applied  to  the  existing  evil.  If  there  is  even  none 
to  listen,  we  must  still  do  our  duty,  and  to  the  last  day  of  our  life 
we  will  yet  say,  only  a  Synod  can  do  us  any  good.  If  none  will 
hear,  God  will  hear,  and  judge  and  decide. 

[Israelite,    Sept.    19,    1856,    p.    84,   editorial,    "  The    Synod   Again."] 

B.  FELSENTHAL,  1856. 

"  The  modern  Jewish  consciousness  is  even  opposed  to  all  San- 
hedrins,  denies  them  the  right  to  usurp  the  authority  which  belongs 
to  the  individual  Jews.  Even  if  a  Sanhedrin,  with  exclusive  power 
to  bind  and  to  solve  would  still  exist,  the  modern  consciousness  would 
employ  all  legitimate  means  to  destroy  it  as  an  obstacle  of  the  de- 
velopment of  Judaism,  and  as  disturbing,  checking,  and  fettering  the 
freedom  of  thought  and  liberty  of  conscience  of  the  individual." 

S. 

February,  1857,  p.  406.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  35 

PROTEST  OF  HAR  SINAI  CONGREGATION,  BALTIMORE, 
AGAINST  THE  PLATFORM  OF  THE  CLEVELAND  CONFER- 
ENCE IN  1855  RECOMMENDING  THE  CONVENING  OF  A 
SYNOD. 

"  May  the  free  American  Israel  be  guarded  against  hierarchical 
schemes,  which  under  the  cover  of  sweet  harmony  and  peace  try  to 
enslave  and  fetter  it.  The  original  plan  was  to  establish  a  Consistory. 
Let  once  the  great  work  of  peace  be  perfected  and  everything  be 
brought  under  one 'hat  and  pretty  soon  the  hat  will  be  transformed 
into  the  mitre  of  the  bishop,  then  a  chief  shepherd  will  be  needed  for 
the  large  herd,  and  Jewish  Popes  will  be  a  fixture.  Let  us  thank 
God  for  the  blessings  of  religious  freedom  in  this  country,  and  let  us 
beware  of  placing  a  yoke  upon  our  shoulders,  under  the  burden  of 
which  neither  the  old  nor  the  reformed  Judaism  would  be  able  to 
breathe  freely."  S. 

[Einhorn's  Sinai,  I,  28.] 

LEOPOLD  STEIN,  1856. 

"  With  us  in  Europe  the  endeavor  to  guard  against  every  seces- 
sion in  one  and  the  same  congregation  is  justifiable.  This  considera- 
tion has  in  many  places  prevented  more  decisive  and  radical  reforms. 
But  things  are  different  in  America.  There  is  secession  from  the 
start.  Why,  then,  make  attempts  to  force  uniformity?  It  was 
always  our  most  cheerful  hope  that  in  the  land  of  liberty  Judaism, 
unchecked  by  external  disturbances,  and  free  from  the  yoke  of  tal- 
mudic  casuistry  would  indeed  soar  to  the  heights  of  freedom.  But 
with  a  feeling  of  bitterness  we  must  confess  that  we  are  deeply  disap- 
pointed in  this  hope.  A  Synod,  based  upon  such  principles,  could 
perhaps  establish  a  North  American  'High  Synagogue.'  But  the 
chances  are  that  the  dissenters  might  soon  constitute  the  majority." 

S. 

[Stein's  Volkslehrer,  V,  418-19.] 

WlSfc    1857. 

We  must  have  reforms,  a  new  position  in  society  requires  an  out- 
ward change  of  matters  and  things ;  but  we  want  no  illegal  reforms ; 
sucH  a  Synod  or  its  committee  which  will  decide  to  be  legal,  are  so, 
notwithstanding  the  weeping  of  the  ultraconservative  and  the  noise 


36  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

of  the  radicals.  We  want  progressive  reforms  which  sever  not  the 
ties  of  our  nation  ;  such  reforms  can  originate  only  with  a  Synod 
in  which  the  congregations  are  represented.  We  want  a  conserva- 
tive authority  opposed  to  the  nullifying  attempts  of  ignorance  and 
frivolity,  the  arrogance  of  self-made  ministers  and  overbearing 
Parnassim,  the  money-raising  speculations,  to  which  congregational 
officers  are  now  reduced.  We  must  have  an  authority  to  form  a 
center  of  union,  to  produce  and  carry  out  plans  for  the  revival  of 
the  Jewish  spirit  by  thorough  knowledge,  eminent  learning  and  true 
piety.  This  authority  is  the  Synod  in  every  country  with  its  execu- 
tive committee,  and  the  General  Synod,  consisting  of  members 
elected  by  the  several  Synods,  and  of  its  executive  committee. 

Let  the  individual  arrange  his  own  religious  affairs  as  his  con- 
science dictates,  but  the  affairs  of  Israel's  religion,  the  Messiah  of 
the  world  must  be  managed  by  Israel  aggregately.  Israel  in  union 
and  harmony,  in  one  mind  and  one  spirit. 


[The  Israelite,  March  27,  1857,  p.  300,  editorial,  "  Another  Voice  in  Favor  of  Synod."] 

HOLDHE1M.     1857. 

It  is  not  so  absolutely  true  as  is  commonly  thought  that  the  pres- 
ence of  a  regularly  constituted  religious  authority  retards  and  that 
its  absence  promotes  free  development  in  Judaism.  On  the  con- 
trary, from  an  historical  point  of  view  the  opposite  must  be  main- 
tained. As  long  as  a  body  existed  which  was  possessed  of  the 
sanctified  authority  to  arrange  of  its  own  volition  the  religious  life 
of  the  people  according  to  its  needs,  so  long  was  the  progress  of  the 
religious  spirit,  even  against  the  Bible,  free  and  active.  This 
ceased  only  when  the  dead  letter  gained  power  and  religious  life 
which  had  till  then  continually  developed  was  benumbed.  The  au- 
thority of  the  Bible  was  embodied  in  the  authority  of  the  central 
religious  organization  and  the  letter  of  the  former  was  full  of  the 
living  spirit  of  the  latter.  .  .  .  \ 

The  authority  of  the  central  religious  organization  (Synhedrin) 
was  based  only  apparently  on  old  traditions.  In  reality  it  depended 
rather  upon  the  fact  that  it  took  cognizance  of  the  life  and  conditions 
of  the  people  and  thereby  made  itself  the  true  and  apt  organ  of  the 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  37 

religious  sympathies  of  the  people.  The  people  are  always  very 
susceptible  to  belief  in  the  divine  authority -of  that  religious  organi- 
zation from  which  the  furtherance  of  its  spiritual  well-being  pro- 
ceeds. 

Tradition  was,  therefore,  not  the  root  but  rather  the  crown  on  the 
trunk  of  the  authoritative  religious  organization  (Religions- 
behorde) ;  this  latter  was  not  the  child  of  tradition,  but  vice  versa. 
Had  the  German  rabbinical  conferences  known  how  to  maintain  and 
enhance  the  sympathies  of  the  educated  public,  which  originally 
hailed  them  with  joy,  they  would  not  have  lacked  authority  whereby 
to  become  gradually  the  guides  of  the  religious  spirit  in  Judaism 
and  to  fortify  themselves  in  this  position.  Unless  we  are  much 
mistaken  as  to  the  future,  this  must  eventually  happen  in  Judaism. 
Over  all  the  chaotic  dissensions  there  hovers  and  rules  the  historical 
spirit  of  Judaism,  and  this  will  not  fail  to  create  its  organ.11 

[Geschichte  der  Entstehung  und  Entwickelung  der  judischen  Reformgemeinde  in  Berlin, 
Holdheim  1857,  Note  3,  pp.  220-221.] 

11  Es  ist  nicht  so  unbedingt  wahr,  wie  allgemein  angenommen  wird,  dass 
durch  eine  constituirte  Religionsbehorde  die  freie  Bewegung  im  Judenthume 
gebunden  und  in  Ermangelung  derselben  die  Freiheit  gefordert  werde.  Viel- 
mehr  muss  vom  historischen  Standpunkte  aus  das  Gegentheil  behauptet  wer- 
den.  So  lange  eine  Behorde  existirte,  die  im  Besitz  der  geheiligten  Autoritat 
war,  das  religiose  Leben  der  Nation  nach  deren  Bediirfnissen  selbstandig  zu 
ordnen,  war  die  Fortleitung  des  religiosen  Geistes,  auch  der  Bibel  gegeniiber, 
eine  freie  und  lebendige,  die  erst  dann  erstarb,  als  der  todte  Buchstabe  das 
Regiment  uberkam  und  das  bis  dahin  fliissige  und  bewegliche  religiose  Leben 
in  ihm  erstarrte.  Die  Autoritat  der  Bibel  war  in  der  Autoritat  der  Relig- 
ionsbehorde verkorpert  und  der  Buchstabe  der  erstern  voll  des  lebendigen 
Geistes  der  letztern 

Die  Autoritat  der  Religionsbehorde  beruhete  aber  nur  scheinbar  auf  alten 
Ueberlieferungen,  im  Grunde  vielmehr  darauf,  dass  sie  auf  das  Leben  und 
die  Lebensverhaltnisse  des  Volkes  Riicksicht  nahm  und  sich  dadurch  zum 
wahren  und  gliicklichen  Organ  der  religiosen  Sympathien  des  Volkes  machte. 
Das  Volk  ist  immer  sehr  empfanglich  fur  den  Glauben  an  die  gottliche  Au- 
toritat derjenigen  Religionsbehorde,  von  der  es  Forderung  seiner  geistigen 
Wohlfahrt  erhalt.  Die  Tradition  war  daher  nicht  die  Wurzel,  sondern  viel- 
mehr die  Krone  an  dem  Stamm  der  Religionsbehorde,  und  diese  ist  nicht  aus 
jener  entsprossen,  sondern  jene  von  dieser  erzeugt  worden.  Hatten  es  die 
deutschen  Rabbinerversammlungen  verstanden,  sich  die  Sympathien  der 
gebildeten  Gesammtheit,  die  ihnen  anfanglich  zujauchzten,  zu  erhalten 
und  dieselben  zu  steigern,  es  hatte  ihnen  an  Autoritat  nicht  gefehlt,  sich 


38  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

ZACHARIAS  FRANKEL.    1857. 

If  we  are,  therefore,  rio't  able  to  give  again  to  learning  its  former 
activity,  then  all  the  more  is  it  incumbent  on  us  to  prevent  that  dis- 
union which  presumption,  nourished  and  maintained  by  increasing 
ignorance  here  and  there,  threatens  to  bring  about.  The  only  relief 
lies  in  a  supreme  religious  congregation  in  the  form  of  a  consistory  or 
Synod  independently  chosen  by  the  congregations  themselves. 
There  was  such  an  authority  of  old  in  Judaism.  It  went  by  the 
name  of  the  great  Sanhedrin  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  and  its 
dicta  were  accepted  by  all  Israel.  This  institution  was  not  re-estab- 
lished after  the  downfall  of  the  Jewish  state.  It  was  thought  best 
to  allow  learning  the  widest 'possible  range.  The  universality  of 
scholarship  and  the  active  religious  spirit  which  resulted  therefrom 
warranted  that  it  would  neither  batter  down  the  restraints  of  the 
faith  nor  yet  hold  it  in  gloomy  subjection.  The  necessity  for  a 
supreme,  religious  organization  is,  we  cannot  deny,  a  melancholy  phe- 
nomenon, yet  its  institution  is  peremptory,  if  we  do  not  desire  a 
worse  condition.  Scholastic  freedom  as  well  as  the  independence 
of  the  congregations  will  be  more  secure  in  the  hands  of  such 
an  authority  than  it  is  in  the  present  chaos  where  the  "  priestly 
garb  "  ( jn:A  rfet?)  here,  there  and  everywhere  is  exploited  in  the 
most  unworthy  manner  to  the  injury  of  learning  and  of  the  normal 
development  of  the  congregations.  It  is  possible  that  Judaism  at 
present  is  not  qualified  to  create  such  an  institution  because  of  the 
many  different  elements  within  it.  Yet  real  religious  necessity 
forces  its  way  through  hindrance  and  obstruction.  Many  recent 
events  point  to  a  remedy  along  the  lines  indicated  above  and  a  not 
distant  future  will  witness  its  realization  in  all  likelihood.12 

immer  mehr  und  mehr  zur  Fortleiterin  des  religiosen  Geistes  im  Judenthume 
zu  machen  und  in  derselben  zu  befestigen.  Wenn  uns  unser  Blick  in  die 
Zukunft  nicht  triigt,  wird  es  im  Judenthum  doch  dahin  kommen  mussen. 
Ueber  alien  chaotischen  Zerwiirfnissen  schwebt  und  waltet  der  geschichtliche 
Geist  des  Judenthums.  Dieser  wird  nicht  verfehlen,  sich  sein  Organ  zu 
schaffen. 

[Geschichte  der  Entstehung  und  Entwichelung  der  judischen  Reformgemeinde  in  Berlin, 
Holdheim,  1857,  note  3,  pp.  220-221.] 

12 ....  Vermogen  wir  daher  nicht  der  Wissenschaft  ihre  fruhere  Leben- 
digkeit  wiederzugeben,  so  ergeht  um  so  mehr  die  dringende  Aufforderung, 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  39 

GEIGER.    1865. 

Two  things  are  necessary.  In  the  first  place  a  Jewish  theological 
faculty. 

.  .  .  .  Secondly,  large  assemblies  for  the  discussion  of  Jew- 
ish questions.  By  such  means  only  does  regenerated  interest  as  well 
as  mutual  understanding  and  enlightenment  arise.  This  is  the  cen- 
ter of  gravity  of  the  whole  matter.  In  such  assemblies,  general, 
practical  questions,  which  are  continually  cropping  up,  spring  forth 
of  themselves.  They  cannot  be  prescribed  beforehand.  It  is  a  mis- 

der  Zersplitterung  vorzubeugen,  welche  die  durch  die  iiberhandnehmende 
Unwissenschaftlichkeit  genahrten  und  geforderten  Anmassungen  von  der 
einen  wie  von  der  andern  Seite  herbeizufiihren  drohen.  Die  Abhiilfe  zeigt 
sich  allein  in  einer  von  den  Gemeinden,  in  Form  eines  Consistoriums  oder 
eine  Synode  selbststandig  gewahlten  obersten  Religionsbehorde.  Das  jiidische 
Alterthum  kennt  eine  solche  Behorde:  sie  residirte  unter  dem  Namen  des 
grossen  Synhedrins  (Synhedrions)  im  Tempel  zu  Jerusalem  und  ihr  Aus- 
spruch  war  massgebend  fur  ganz  Israel.  Das  Institut  wurde  nach  dem  Unter- 
gange  des  jiid.  Staates  nicht  erneuert;  man  wollte  der  Lehrfreiheit  den 
weitesten  Umfang  geben,  und  dass  sie  weder  die  Schranken  des  Glaubens 
durchbrechen,  noch  ihn  in  dumpfer  Unterwiirfigkeit  darnieder  halten  werde, 
dafiir  burgte  die  Allgemeinheit  des  Studiums  und  der  durch  es  geweckte 
lebendige  wie  glaubensstarke  Geist.  Das  Bediirfniss  einer  obersten  Re- 
ligionsbehorde ist,  wir  konnen  es  nicht  verhehlen,  eine  triibe  Erscheinung  und 
dennoch  unabweisbar,  wollen  wir  nicht  noch  truberen  Erscheinungen  ent- 
gegengehen.  Auch  wird  die  Lehrfreiheit  so  wie  die  Selbstandigkeit  der 
Gemeinden  im  Schosse  einer  solchen  Behorde  gesicherter  sein,  als  in  der  jetzt 
allenthalben  hervortretenden  Zerfahrenheit,  wo  das  "  Priestergewand "  nSftt? 
jroS  hier  wie  dort  in  der  unwiirdigsten  Weise  zum  Nachtheile  der  Wis- 
senschaft  und  der  naturgemassen  Entwickelung  der  Gemeinde  ausgebeutet 
wird.  Zwar  diirfte  unsere  Gegenwart  nach  mehrfach  sich  in  jhr  geltend  mach- 
enden  Elementen  zu  der  organischen  Schopfung  eines  solchen  Instituts  nicht 
befahigt  sein ;  doch  das  eigentlich  religiose  Bedurfniss  kommt  durch  Hinder- 
nisse  und  Hemmnisse  zum  Durchbruch,  es  dringen  vielfache  Vorgange  auf 
eine  Befriedigung  in  obigem  Sinne,  und  es  wird  sie  wohl  eine  nicht  feme 
Zukunft  bringen 

[Monatschrift  filr  Geschichte  und  Wissenschaft  des  Judenthums,  Dr.  Z.   Frankel,   1857, 
pp.    15-16.] 


40  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

take  to  continually  insist  upon  a  declaration  of  a  practical,  tangible 
purpose  from  such  an  assembly,  when  the  practical  lies  in  the  very 
gathering  together  of  such  a  large  body  which  is  susceptible  of 
every  sort  of  stimulation  and  is  ready  to  lend  its  strength  to  every 
movement  towards  every  revival  and  improvement  in  wider  and 
narrower  circles.  Finished  results  and  definite  aims  should  not  be 
presented  to  it  but  means  should  be  offered  to  bring  about  a  more 
correct  knowledge  of  Judaism  and  to  affect  a  blending  of  the  re- 
ligious spirit  with  life,  by  which  means  in  every  instance  the  ade- 
quate result  will  be  accomplished.  Every  epoch  brings  its  prob- 
lems, which  affect  now  a  smaller  and  now  a  larger  sphere,  but 
which  are  not  solved  properly  because  general  interest  and  the 
vigor  of  combined  action  are  lacking.13 

ALLIANCE  ISRAELITE  ON  SYNOD,  1867. 

It  is  only  natural  that  the  Alliance  Israelite  Universelle  should 
decline  to  send  a  delegate  to  the  Synod  since  it  is  a  political  organi- 

13  WAS  THUT  NOTH? 
Also  zwei  Dinge  thut  Noth :  erstens  eine  jiidisch-theologische  Facultat 

Das  zweite  besteht  in  grosseren  Versammlungen  zur  Besprechung  jiidischer 
Fragen.  Nur  aus  ihnen  erwachst  ebenso  ein  neu  belebtes  Interesse  wie  ge- 
genseitige  Aufklarung  und  Belehrung.  Hierin  liegt  der  Schwerpunkt  des 
Ganzen.  In  solchen  Versammlungen  bilden  sich  die.iiberall  vorliegenden  und 
jeden  Augenbllck  neu  hervortretenden  praktischen  Fragen  von  selbst;  sie 
konnen  nicht  von  vornherein,  vorgeschrieben  werden.  Ich  halte  es  fur  ein 
Missverstandniss,  wenn  man  hier  immer  auf  die  Angabe  eines  praktischen 
greifbaren  Zweckes  dringt,  wahrend  das  praktische  gerade  in  deni  Mittel 
liegt,  eine  grossere  Schaar  zu  sammeln,  die  fur  eine  jede  Anregung  emp- 
fanglich  ist,  und  einer  jeden  Belebung  und  Verbesserung  im  grosseren  und 
engeren  Kreise  ihre  Krafte  zu  leihen  bereit  ist  Nicht  fertige  Resultate  soil 
man  entgegen  bringen,  nicht  bestimmte  einzelne  Zielpunkte  aufstellen,  son- 
dern  gerade  dem  allgemeinen  Ziele  einer  richtigeren  Erkenntniss  des  Juden- 
thums  und  einer  Verschmelzung  der  religiosen  Idee  mit  dem  Leben  die  Mittel 
darbieten,  wodurch  in  jedem  einzelnen  Falle  das  angemessene  Resul- 
tat  erreicht  werde.  Jeder  kurze  Zeitabschnitt  bringt  seine  Frage,  die 
bald  einen  engeren  bald  einen  weiteren  Kreis  bewegt,  und  die  nicht  zur 
geeigneten  Losung  kommt,  weil  die  allgemeine  Betheiligung,  der  Nachdruck 
der  gesammtthatigheit  fehlt 

[Jiidische  Zeitschrift  fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,   1865,  pp.  254-255.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  41^ 

zation   which   aims   only   to   protect   and    educate   our   persecuted 
brethren. 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  Aug.   13,   1869,  No.   15,  pp.  289-290.] 

1868. 

RESOLUTION  ON  SYNOD  PASSED  BY  RABBINICAL 
CONFERENCE  AT  CASSEL,  AUGUST,  1868. 

The  assembly  at  Cassel  unanimously  decided  upon  the  following: 

1.  To  call  a  Synodal  assembly  composed  of  rabbis,  Jewish  schol- 
ars and  representatives  of  the  congregations. 

2.  To  choose  committees  from  the  various  spheres  of  Judaism 
who  are  to  formulate  propositions  for  the  synod,  and  to  explain 
and  prove  them  in  memoirs.14 

FROM  MINUTES  OF  CASSEL  RABBINICAL  CONFERENCE,  1868. 

The  rabbinical  conference  at  Cassel  is  of  the  opinion  that  a  Synod, 
called  from  time  to  time,  would  stir  matters  up  in  Judaism.  The 
next  Synod  shall  be  held  in  1869.  The  desire  was  also  expressed 
that  district  and  provincial  Synods  be  constituted  to  make  prepara- 
tions for  the  General  Synod.  It  is  understood  that  in  these  smaller 
Synods,  Jewish  scholars  and  representatives  of  communities  can  and 
should ^take  part  as  well  as  rabbis.15 

14  Die  Versammlung  zu  Cassel  beschloss  daher  einstimmig : 

1.  Eine  Synodal versammlung  aus  Rabbinen,  jiidischen  Gelehrter  und  Ver- 
tretern  der  Gemeinden,  zu  berufen; 

2.  Commissionen  zu  erwahlen,  welche  aus  den  verschiedenen  Gebieten  des 
Judenthums  fur  die  Synodalversammlung  Antrage  formuliren  und  in  Denk-. 
schriften  auseinander  setzen  und  begrunden  sollen. 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  Jan.  26,    1869,  Vol.   4,  p.  63.] 

15BERICHT  UBER  DIE  VERHANDLUNG  DER  RABBINERVER- 
SAMMLUNG  ZU  CASSEL. 


2.  Die  gegenwartige  Versammlung  nimmt  die  bei  ihr  eingehenden  Antrage 
in  Empfang,  entscheidet,  -ob  alsbald  dariiber  beschlossen,  oder  nach  kurzer 
Berathung  je  ein  Referent,  Coreferent  oder  Commission  ernannt  werden 
sollen  die  ihre  Berichte  der  jetztigen  oder  nachsten  Versammlung  zu  uber- 
geben  haben. 

Nach  diesem  Beschlusse  wurden  die  verschiedenen  eingegangenen  Antrage 


42  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 


GEIGER.    1868. 

The  rabbis'  meeting  at  Cassel  (August,  1868)  decided  to  agitate 
for  mixed  assemblies,  in  which,  however,  the  rabbis  were  to  pre- 
dominate. The  rabbis  will  and  really  ought  to  form  the  nucleus 
for  they  combine  expert  knowledge  with  an  understanding  of  the 
needs  of  practical  life.  The  assemblies,  furthermore,  should  be 
deliberative  but  not  authoritative.  If  the  term  "  Synod  "  has  been 
used  frequently  to  designate  these  assemblies  it  should  denote  only 
the  combination  of  the  various  elements,  not  the  fulfillment  of  a 
choice  and  the  right  to  make  decisions.  If  representatives  of  con- 
gregations (Gemeindevertreter)  are  mentioned  as  to  form  one  of 
the  elements  of  the  assembly,  along  with  rabbis  and  scholars,  such 
are  to  be  men  who  are  capable  of  participating  in  such  deliberations. 
They  will  be  known  to  be  such  through  the  confidence  which  the 
congregations  show  by  choosing  them  as  representatives  and 
through  the  insight  into  and  knowledge  of  the  needs  of  the  congre- 
gations which  they  have  gained  as  administrators  of  communal 
affairs.  But  this  does  not  mean  exclusively  men  who  have  been  ex- 
pressly chosen  and  delegated  by  the  congregation  or  the  directorate 
for  this  purpose,  not  representatives.  The  vital  point  is  not  the 

verlesen  die  ihrem  Inhalt  nach  in  4  Kategorien  sich  theilten,  indem  sie  (i) 
den  Cultus,  (2)  die  Synode,  (3)  die  Schule  und  (4)  das  Ritual-  namentlich 
Ehegesetz  betrafen.  Es  wurde  zur  Abstimmung  die  Frage  gestellt :  in 
welcher  Reihenfolge  iiber  die  Antrage  berathen  und  beschlossen  werden  solle  ? 
Nach  langerer  Debatte  wurde  durch  Stimmeneinheit  beschlossen,  in  erster 
Reihe  iiber  die  Berufung  periodischer  Synoden  sich  zu  verstandigen,  Denn — 
das  leuchtete  ein — das  religiose  Leben  in  den  Gemeinden  wird  ein  Ferment 
erhalten  durch  von  Zeit  zu  Zeit  wiederkehrende  Synoden.  Die  nachste 
Synode  soil  in  Jahre  1869  einberufen  werden.  Die  Unterzeichneten  wurden 
damit  betraut,  dazu  die  Vorbereitungen  zu  treffen.  Auch  der  Wunsch  fand 
Anklang,  es  sollen  in  engern  Bezirken  Local-  und  Provincialsynoden  sich  con- 
stituiren,  um  fur  die  jedesmalige  Generalsynode  vorzuarbeiten.  Es  versteht 
sich  von  selbst,  dass  dort  wie  hier  ausser  den  Rabbinern  auch  andere  judische 
Gelehrte  und  Gemeinde-Vertreter  sich  betheiligen  konnen  und  mogen. 

ADLER,  PHILIPPSON,  AUB. 

[Beilage  zur  Allgemeiner  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  No.  4,  Jan.  26,  1869.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  43 

credential  indicating  authorization  to  cast  a  vote  for  the  congrega- 
tion. The  power  of  conviction  not  delegated  power  must  be  the 
supreme  influence.  In  law-making  and  legislative  bodies,  when  it 
is  a  question  of  the  immediate  satisfying  of  inevitable  demands,  the 
people,  the  majority,  must  yield,  give  the  final  decision  through  their 
representatives.  Spiritual  questions  and  those  involving  conviction 
can  be  discussed  and  brought  to  a  head  only  fry  those  who  are 
by  nature  capable  and  called  and  not  by  delegates.16 

[Jiidische  Zeitschrift  filr  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  Dr.  Abraham  Geiger,  1868,  p.  245.] 

16  DIE  VERSAMMLUNG  VON  RABBINERN  IN  CASSEL. 

Also  ....  gemischte  Versammlungen,  in  denen  doch  die  Rabbiner  den 
Schwerpunkt  bilden  werden,  beschlossen  die  zu  Cassel  Tagenden  anzttre- 
gen.  Ja,  die  Rabbiner  werden  und  sollen  auch  ferner  deren  Schwerpunkt 
bilden,  weil  sie  eben  die  beiden  massgebenden  Momente  der  Sachkenner- 
schaft  und  des  Lebensbedurfnisses  in  sich  vereinigen.  Die  Versammlungen 
sollen  auch  weiter  ganz  den  bisherigen  Charakter  der  freien  Berathung  und 
nicht  der  Entscheidung  haben.  Wenn  der  Ausdruck  "  Synode "  haufig  fur 
dieselben  gebraucht  worden,  so  sollte  derselbe  die  Zusammensetzung  aus 
verschiedenen  Elementen,  nicht  die  Vollziehung  einer  Wahl  und  die  Be- 
rechtigung  zur  vertretenden  Entscheidung  bezeichnen.  Wenn  neben  Rab- 
binern  und  Gelehrten  noch  von  "  Gemeindevertretern  "  die  Rede  ist,  welche 
ein  Element  der  Versammlung  bilden  sollen,  so  sind  unter  ihnen 
Manner  verstanden,  welche  Beruf  und  Befahigung  zur  Theilnahme 
an  solchen  Berathungen  bekunden  durch  das  Vertrauen,  welches 
ihnen  die  Gemeinde  durch  die  Berufung  zur  Vertretung  ihrer  Angele- 
genheiten  bewiesen,  durch  den  Einblick  und  die  Erfahrung  uber  die 
Bedurfnisse  der  Gemeinden,  welche  sie  durch  die  Verwaltung  erlangt  haben. 
Keineswegs  sind  aber  etwa  damit  ausschliesslich  Manner  gemeint,  welche 
ausdriicklich  zu  diesem  Behufe  von  der  Gemeinde  oder  dem  Vorstande  ge- 
wahlt  und  abgeschickt  werden,  nicht  Abgeordnete.  Es  gilt  nicht  die 
abschliessende  Entscheidung,  nicht  die  Legitimation,  dass  man  befugt  sei  fur 
die  Gemeinde  ein  Stimmrecht  auszuiiben.  Die  Macht  der  Ueberzeugung 
muss  wirken,  nicht  die  iibertragene  Gewalt.  Bei  gesetzgebenden  Versamm- 
lungen, bei  Landtagen,  wo  es  die  unmittelbare  Befriedigung  unausweichlicher 
Anforderungen  gilt,  muss  die  Masse,  die  Majoritat,  beziehungsweise  ihre 
Vertretung  das  Endurtheil  abgeben ;  Fragen  des  Geistes  und  der  Ueberzeug- 
ung konnen  nur  zu  Discussion,  zur  Reife  gebracht  werden  von  den  dazu 
innerlich  Befahigten  und  Berufenen,  nicht  von  Delegirten. 

[Jiidische  Zeitschrift  fiir  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  Dr.  Abraham  Geiger,   1868,  p.  245.] 


44  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

1868. 

JEWISH  CHRONICLE. 
THE  PROJECTED  S^NOD. 

A  subject  of  considerable  interest  to  the  Jewish  community  is  now 
being  discussed  by  a  portion  of  the  Continental  Jewish  press.  It  is 
the  expediency  of  convening  an  universal  Synod,  or,  to  borrow  an 
ecclesiastical  term  from  our  neighbors,  an  oecumenical  council.  The 
idea  was  suggested  by  the  Vice-President  of  the  Central  Consistory 
of  France,  and  met  with  the  approbation  of  the  eminent  Jewish  his- 
torian, Dr.  Gratz,  and  we  believe  also  of  some  of  the  other  leading 
scholars  of  the  Jewish  people.  Without  inquiring  whether  provin- 
cial and  even  local  conferences  should  or  should  not  precede  the 
proposed  universal-  gathering ;  whether  preliminary  meetings  for  the 
purpose  of  preparing  and  eliciting  public  opinion  on  the  matter 
should  or  should  not  be  held  in  the  several  centers  of  the  Jewish 
population ;  and  whether  a  programme  of  the  work  to  be  done  should 
or  should  not  be  published — we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  the 
meeting  of  such  a  Synod  in  our  days  is  neither  impracticable  nor 
undesirable. 

A  satisfactory  answer,  however,  must  depend  upon  the  nature  of 
the  replies  that  can  be  given  to  a  series  of  questions,  some  of  pri- 
mary and  others  of  secondary  importance,  and  which  may  thus  be 
formulated.  Is  there  anything  in  the  existing  state  of  Judaism  that 
should  render  such  a  convention  at  all  desirable?  And  if  the  state 
.of  Judaism  should  be  such  as  to  call  for  such  a  meeting,  what  remedy 
could  this  offer  for  healing  any  of  the  existing  evils?  Lastly,  sup- 
pose remedies  were  suggested,  what  means  would  the  Synod  have 
to  apply  them  ?  To  illustrate  this  by  a  simile  taken  from  every-day 
life,  the  question  is,  Is  there  really  sickness  in  the  house?  and  if 
this  be  the  case,  Is  the  sickness  of  a  nature  to  allow  of  successful 
treatment?  and  what  means  is  there  to  induce  the  patient  to  submit 
to  the  proposed  treatment?  And  should  all  these  questions  receive 
a  solution  in  the  affirmative,  then  it  may  be  asked,  By  whom  is  the 
Synod  to  be  convened— where  is  it  to  meet?  is  it  to  be  composed  of 
voluntaries  or  delegates  of  communities?  and  in  the  latter  case, 
what  are  to  be  the  qualifications  of  a  candidate  ?  It  need  hardly  be 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  45 

stated  that  an  exhaustive  answer  to  these  questions  would  require 
an  essay.  Nevertheless  a  general  reply  to  them  may  be  given 
within  a  much  narrower  compass ;  and  this  attempt  we  will  now 
venture  to  make. 

We  are  not  afraid  of  being  contradicted  by  any  of  our  readers  if 
we  characterize  the  present  state  of  Judaism  in  the  civilized  world  as 
one  calculated  to  give  rise  to  very  serious  apprehensions.  Gradu- 
ally, ever  since  the  partition  walls  of  the  ghettos  have  been  broken 
down,  and  their  secluded  tenants  invited  to  come  forth  and  take  up 
a  position  in  general  society,  there  has  arisen  a  deplorable  dishar- 
mony between  Jewish  inner  life  such  as  shaped  by  traditional  habits, 
practices,  tastes,  views  and  associations  of  olden  times,  and  the  opin- 
ions, customs,  notions,  and  demands  of  a  period  under  the  -dominion 
of  radically  different  influences,  motives  of  action  and  aspects  of 
things.  No  one,  however  superficially  he  may  have  observed  the 
events  of  the  day,  can  deny  the  existence  of  powerful  agents  gnaw- 
ing at  the  very  vitals  of  Judaism,  incessantly  corroding  and  disinte- 
grating its  elements.  The  gulf  between  Judaism  and  Judaism,  as  in 
theory  and  practice,  becomes  daily  wider.  Theoretically,  we,  in 
reference  to  Judaism,  still  occupy  the  standpoint  on  which  the  Polish 
Rabbi  Isserles,  the  last  authoritative  commentator  of  our  religious 
code,  placed  us  in  the  sixteenth  century ;  but  practically — where  are 
we  ?  Parodying  the  words  of  the  prophet,  we  may  say,  "  The  num- 
ber of  thy  congregations  are  thy  codes  of  law,  O  Judah !  "  Whether 
in  dogma,  practice  or  culte,  which  is  their  visible  manifestation  and 
expression,  the  unfortunate  differences  are  equally  striking.  Not 
even  the  leading  doctrines  have  escaped  either  the  mutilating  knife 
or  the  decomposing  process  of  an  unscrupulous  age.  We  do  not 
create  the  differences  if  we  point  them  out ;  we  do  not  enunciate  an 
opinion  if  we  characterize  it.  We  simply  chronicle  what  already 
exists. 

Now  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  are  at  present  whole  congre- 
gations— and  these  by  no  means  small  in  number  or  uninfluential — 
which  no  longer  wish  for  a  restoration  to  the  land  of  their  fathers, 
and  which  shrink  from  the  very  idea  of  the  reinstrtution  of  animal 
sacrifices.  Nay,  more ;  the  idea  of  *  a  personal  Messiah  is  alto- 
gether alien  from  their  minds.  And  accordingly,  from  the  prayer- 


46  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

books  compiled  for  these  communities  all  references  to  these  doc- 
trines have  been  carefully  eliminated.  New  and  individual  interpre- 
tations of  inconvenient  laws  and  practices  have  in  many  cases  been 
substituted  for  traditional  ones,  hitherto  considered  authoritative; 
and  in  accordance  and  in  harmony  with  these  new  views,  alterations 
have  been  made  in  public  worship  as  well  as  in  the  observances  once 
customary  in  private  life.  All  these  matters  being  notorious,  can 
it  be  denied  that  there  is  indeed  desolation  in  Judah,  that  from  the 
sole  of  the  foot  to  the  crown  of  the  head  there  is  nothing  whole, 
that  there  is  sickness  in  the  house,  and  that  there  is  time  to  call  in 
medical  aid? 

But  what  remedy,  it  will  be  asked,  could  a  Synod  propose  ?  Would 
any  Council,  however  earnest,  devout  and  learned,  have  authority 
profanely  to  lay  hand  on  the  sacred  building  designed  by  the  sages 
of  old,  and  completed  in  subsequent  ages  after  the  model  bequeathed 
to  them?  Has  not,  with  the  conclusion  of  the  Talmud,  all  capacity 
for  further  development,  the  formation  of  new  institutions,  and  the 
modification  and  abolition  of  old  ones,  however  useless,  however 
subversive  of  their  primary  object,  ceased?  Were  we  of  this  opin- 
ion, there  would  of  course  be  an  end  to  all  further  inquiry.  What 
would  be  the  use  of  calling  a  physician  into  the  house  of  sickness, 
if  the  case  is  known  to  be  incurable  ?  But  this  view  of  ultra-ortho- 
doxy is  altogether  unfounded.  It  would  take  more  space  and  time 
than  we  can  conveniently  devote  to  the  subject,  were  we  to  attempt 
conclusively  to  show  the  untenableness  of  this  opinion.  Suffice  it 
for  the  present  to  state  in  general  terms,  that  the  Talmud  was  never 
intended  by  its  authors  and  compilers  as  a  finality;  that  its  conclu- 
sion was  rather  owing  to  circumstances  from  without — persecution 
and  suppression  of  academies — than  design;  that  its  decisions  have 
never  been  received  as  final  by  any  Synod ;  that  the  authority  which 
it  undoubtedly  possesses  is  rather  due  to  the  respect  which  its  indi- 
vidual representatives  instilled  into  the  minds  of  the  people,  to  the 
tacit  assent  of  the  leaders  of  Israel,  and  to  the  necessity  felt  of  pos- 
sessing some  standard  for  uniformity,  than  any  distinct  conscious- 
ness in  the  popular  mind  of  its  intrinsic  merit  and  solemn  reception 
by  the  whole  dispersion  of  Israel;  and  that  if  there  are  here  and 
there  found  in  the  Talmud,  dicta  which  seem  to  arrogate  to  it  final 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  47 

authority,  they  are  neutralized  by  others  of  a  contrary  sense ;  that  the 
Talmud  itself  presents  to  us  the  most  striking  instances  of  differ- 
ences of  opinion;  and  that,  after  all,  although  in  a  smaller  degree, 
further  development,  extension  and  contraction  have  taken  place  in 
subsequent  ages. 

If  Israel,  within  the  last  thirteen  centuries,  has  apparently  stood 
still;  if  in  the  decision  of  all  grave  questions  it  exclusively  leaned 
upon  this  staff,  it  was  because  of  the  hostility  of  the  outer  world 
which  rendered  all  joint  deliberation  and  action  impossible;  and  thus, 
if  religious  anarchy  was  to  be  avoided,  pointed  to  the  status  quo  as 
preferable  to  the  disintegration  which  must  have  been  the  conse- 
quence of  a  single-handed  movement ;  it  was  because  the  instinct  of 
self-preservation  amidst  deadly  foes,  incessantly  plotting  the  relig- 
ious destruction  of  the  people  pointed  to  the  book  which,  more 
profoundly  than  any  other  of  its  writings,  sympathetically  responded 
to  it ;  and  lastly,  it  was  because  the  mighty  yearning  after  union,  so 
deeply  felt  amidst  the  elements  aiming  at  separation,  outweighing 
every  other  consideration,  attached  itself  with  irresistible  tenacity  to 
the  volume  which,  more  than  any  other,  was  calculated  to  gratify 
the  longing  and  to  uphold  the  fellowship.  But  these  claims  of  the 
Talmud  to  the  legitimate  influence  undoubtedly  due  to  it,  and  happily 
exercised  by  it,  to  the  just  authority  which  it  enjoys,  and  the  well- 
deserved  veneration  in  which  it  is  held,  cannot,  and  in  fact,  were 
not  intended  by  its  authors  and  compilers,  to  override  the  rights  of 
a  future  generation  to  examine,  as  they  themselves  have  done,  the 
principles  of  the  Law,  to  adopt  the  practices  and  observances  grow- 
ing out  from  them  to  the  ever-varying  wants  of  every  age,  and 
while  sacredly  preserving  the  foundation,  modify  the  superstructure 
according  to  circumstances. 

But  while  vindicating  these  rights  for  every  duly  constituted  uni- 
versal Synod,  and  claiming  for  it  the  power  of  resuscitating,  as  it 
were,  the  authority  of  the  Sanhedrin,  which  was  never  extinct  but 
only  held  in  abeyance,  while  outward  circumstances  prevented  its 
reconstitution,  we  as  firmly  deny  that  any  single  section  of  Israel 
can,  of  its  own  accord,  legally  carry  out  any  such  modifications,  how- 
ever justifiable  on  general  grounds.  Indeed,  were  any  such  au- 
thority conferred  on  any  single  section  of  Israel — and  what  would 


48  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

be  accorded  to  one  could  not  be  withheld  from  another — its  unity 
must  soon  cease ;  and  whatever  the  advantage  that  could  possibly 
accrue  to  any  single  section  from  such  an  authority,  wpuld  be  more 
than  counterbalanced  by  the  injury  which  it  must  inflict  on  the 
totality  by  the  forcible  destruction,  or  at  least  weakening  of  the 
bonds  of  union  now  joining  together  Israel's  dispersed  throughout 
all  the  world.  An  universal  duly  constituted  Synod,  therefore,  it  is 
our  firm  conviction,  could  re-establish  between  the  demands  of  the 
age  and  those  of  traditional  Judaism  that  reconciliation  so  much 
needed,  and  without  which  the  sons  of  the  patriarchs  must  forever 
oscillate  between  the  two,  or,  by  keeping  near  the  one  set,  leave  the 
other  unsatisfied. 

Indeed,  were  such  a  reconciliation  established  it  would  not  be  the 
first  time.  A  precedent  may  be  found,  although  the  event  which 
had  disturbed  the  harmony  was  quite  of  a  different  nature.  When, 
after  the  destruction  of  the  second  temple  and  the  dispersion  of 
Israel,  our  national  institutions  had,  as  it  were,  lost  the  center  of 
gravity — some  having  been  deprived  of  their  vitality,  while  the 
altered  circumstances  rendered  new  ones  necessary — the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  time  did  not  fail  energetically  to  go  to  work  to 
adopt,  to  modify,  to  create,  rescind  or  suspend,  as  the  case  might 
have  been ;  and  the  Mishnah  has  preserved  many  a  striking  in- 
stance of  the  blissful  activity  displayed  by  those  truly  enlightened 
preservers  of  Judaism,  one  of  whom — we  refer  to  Rabbi  Jehudah 
the  Prince — candidly  admitted  that  what  he  undertook  was  not  in 
accordance  with  the  Law  as  received  by  him,  but  was  rendered  nec- 
essary by  Israel's  increasing  oppression  and  ever  widening  circle  of 
dispersion.  But  if  even  the  Synod  should  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  it  is  not  in  its  power  to  propose  a  remedy,  the  meeting  would  not 
have  been  in  vain.  It  would  show  to  Israel  what  cannot  be  done; 
and  this,  too,  would  be  a  gain.  For  every  member  of  the  house  of 
Israel  would  then  know  that  it  is  useless  for  him  to  wait  for  the 
means  of  reconciling  conflicting  claims  made  upon  him — that  he  him- 
self must  be  the  umpire  in  his  own  cause,  and  that  he  must  act 
accordingly. 

But  suppose,  it  will  be  asked,  the  Synod  should  discover  and  pro- 
pose the  much-needed  mode  of  reconciliation,  what  means  has  it  to 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  49 

ensure  acceptance  for  it  among  the  several  sections  of  Israel  ?  Would 
not  all  the  inquiries,  all  the  debates  and  all  the  resolutions  be  as 
much  waste  of  time,  if  Israel  should  decline  receiving  what  is  ten- 
dered to  it  ?  This  is  a  very  grave  question,  the  last  of  three  upon  the 
reply  to  which  we  said  the  expediency  of  convening  a  Synod  rests. 

NOTE. — This  question  was  to  be  discussed  in  the  next  number  of  the  Occi- 
dent, but  the  article  never  appeared. 

[From  The  Occident,  February  1868,  Vol.  25,  p.   545.] 

EDITORIAL  IN   OCCIDENT,    1868. 
A  SYNOD. 

Some  months  ago  we  printed  an  article  from  the  London  Jewish 
Chronicle,  advocating  the  convention  of  a  Jewish  ecclesiastical 
Synod.  There  were  some  suggestions  thrown  out  as  to  the  object 
of  such  a  gathering,  and  the  action  deemed  necessary.  It  was  urged 
that  the  differences  of  opinion  prevailing  among  the  various  congre- 
gations, might,  to  a  great  extent,  be  reconciled  by  the  judicious 
counsels  of  the  learned,  and  Israel  once  more  become  united.  Such 
a  general  council  has  not  been  held  for  a  long  time,  and  the  fact  that 
former  generations  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  have  such  convo- 
cations is  not  the  lightest  of  the  arguments  in  favor  of  the  measure. 
If,  however,  the  state  of  the  European  Jewish  community  makes 
such  a  movement  advisable,  surely  the  condition  of  our  American 
"  synagogue  "  imperatively  demands  it.  In  proportion  to  our  popu- 
lation, we  have  many  more  schisms  than  our  trans- Atlantic  brethren ; 
for,  wherever  "  reform  "  has  penetrated  nearly  each  congregation 
has  a  Minhag  of  its  own,  and  it  would  be  hardihood  to  say,  that 
any  two  bodies,  who  have  abandoned  ancient  Judaism,  have  services 
exactly  similar.  It  is  impossible  to  say  how  many  prayer-books  are 
in  use,  or  how  much  of  each  has  been  discarded  by  particular  con- 
gregations. Suffice  it,  that  every  rabbi,  who  boasts  of  his  enlight- 
enment has  instituted  some  changes.  The  most  curious  and  trouble- 
some feature  of  it  all  is,  that  the  clear  spirits  of  the  new  apostles 
see  things  in  such  various  lights  that  no  two  of  them  agree.  We 
have,  for  instance,  the  moderate  "  orthodox,"  who  thinks  that  our 
fathers  did  exactly  right,  but  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  harmony,  is 


5o  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

willing  to  cut  a  piece  off  the  service  here  and  add  another  there,  who 
heartily  sympathizes  with  the  aesthetic  feelings  of  his  cultivated  flock 
and  gives  them  a  fashionable  choir,  composed  of  men,  women  and 
children  without  distinction  of  faith ;  who  adds  German  or  English 
hymns  and  goes  into  holy  ecstasy  over  the  devotion  produced  by  the 
salutary  changes.  Then  we  have  the  moderate  "reformer,"  wno 
believes  that  the  age  has  gathered  all  the  enlightenment  of  the  world, 
and  that  however  sensible. our  ancestors  might  have  been  in  their 
days,  they  would  cut  but  a  sorry  figure  in  ours.  He  is  not  prepared 
to  break  down  entirely  the  bridge  which  connects  us  with  the  Juda- 
ism of  the  past.  In  other  words,  although  he  has  profound  faith  in 
the  wisdom  of  his  own  age,  a  fair  share  of  which  he  modestly 
Scribes  to  himself,  although  he  thinks  that  his  pet  ritual  is  the  great 
panacea  which  cures  all  the  evils  of  "  orthodoxy  "  and  converts  it 
into  a  beneficent  "  reform ;"  although  he  denies  the  truth  of  opin- 
ions which  have  been  generally  receiyed  by  Jews  all  the  world  over, 
yet  does  he  profess  or  entertain  a  sincere  admiration  for  what  he 
calls  pure  Judaism,  uncorrupted  by  human  additions.  Lastly  comes 
the  "ultra-reformer,"  who  philosophizes  away  all  Judaism  and  all 
religion,  and  yet  preaches  vague  generalities  about  the  pure  religion 
of  Moses,  which  he  asserts  to  be  his  own,  and  considers  every  one 
else  as  a  benighted  heathen  who  must  be  looked  upon  with  contempt. 
This  enumeration  alone,  although  it  gives  only  the  strongly  marked 
parties  and  omits  the  many  minor  shades  of  distinction,  is  sufficient 
to  show  that  there  is  a  great  lack  of  unity  among  us.  Two  questions 
therefore  arise :  Can  these  differences  be  reconciled  ?  How  can  we 
effect  the  reconciliation?  These  queries  are  of  the  gravest  import, 
and  may  well  engage  the  attention  of  our  deepest  thinkers. 

As  to  the  first  we  are  inclined  to  believe  that  there  is  no  insuper- 
able obstacle  to  the  harmony  of  the  great  mass  of  American  congre- 
gations, or  perhaps  of  all  of  them ;  at  least  so  far  as  the  ritual  and 
outward  observances  are  concerned.  We  cannot  make  articles  of 
faith  to  which  all  will  subscribe,  but  this  we  neither  need  nor  desire. 
Never,  we  think,  has  a  general  council  laid  down  dogmas  for  Jews, 
the  unbelief  of  which  made  one  heretical,  and  our  age  would  be  the 
most  impracticable  for  the  commencement  of  such  a  course.  True, 
all  Israelites  for  centuries  believe  in  certain  principles  ably  summar- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  51 

ized  by  some  of  our  leading  men ;  but  the  whole  matter  was  left  to 
the  individual  conscience,  and  that  is  the  only  tribunal  which  we, 
for  our  part,  should  ever  desire  to  see  established  on  this  point.  But 
imperious  as  is  the  necessity  for  the  perfect  freedom  of  thought  on 
dogmas,  which,  after  all,  may  have  no  decided  practical  bearing  on 
the  performance  of  our  moral  and  religious  duties,  it  is  no  less  nec- 
essary that  there  should  be  a  standard  for  our  practice  to  which  all 

should  conform 

An  American  Synod  ...  is  not  desirable.  We  have,  how- 
ever, enough  men  of  the  requisite  character  and  accomplishment, 
adhering  to  the  various  shades  of  Judaism,  to  constitute  worthy  rep- 
resentatives abroad  in  an  assembly  of  the  wise  and  learned  of  the 
world.  Orthodox  and  reformers  should  there  meet,  lay  down  a  solid 
basis  for  their  action  and  then  proceed.  Had  the  Cleveland  confer- 
ence been  sufficiently  national,  so  that  its  decrees  might  have  been 
authoritative,  had  it  strictly  adhered  to  the  principles  laid  down  at 
the  beginning,  it  might  have  been  an  important  service  in  the  unifi- 
cation of  American  Judaism.  If  a  general  Synod  as  proposed 
should  meet,  take  as  its  cardinal  rules  those  of  the  Cleveland  assem- 
blage or  something  similar,  we  do  not  despair  of  harmony  if  the 
proper  kind  of  men  be  there,  men  earnest  in  their  desire  to  produce 
peace  and  unity.  One  thing  above  all  it  would  require,  a  faithful 
and  conscientious  acquiescence  in  the  determination  of  the  confer- 
ence upon  such  points  as  would  properly  be  within  the  scope1  of  its 
powers.  This  would  be  the  principal  difficulty,  but  scarcely  an  in- 
surmountable one.  If  we  investigate  the  cause  of  the  disputes 
among  Jews,  as  among  others,  it  will  be  found  that  a  difference  of 
opinions  on  certain  beliefs  is  the  foundation  of  it.  There  are  but 
two  main  principles,  we  think,  which  would  be  necessary  for  the 
guidance  of  the  convention,  viz.,  that  the  Mosaic  law  is  obligatory 
upon  the  Jewish  people,  and  that  the  Talmud  contains  its  authorized 
and  recognized  exposition.  Any  one  denying  the  first  is  certainly 
not  a  Jew,  as  that  word  has  been  understood  up  to  the  present  time, 
and  the  admission  of  the  first  principle  cannot  be  well  utilized  by 
any  other  means  than  by  the  admission  of  the  second.  We  do  not 
believe  that  the  great  mass  of  the  Jewish  people  differ  on  these 
points,  and  it  may  be  that  upon  that  basis  a  uniformity  most  desir- 


52  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

able  can  be  established  all  over  the  globe.  The  experiment  is  cer- 
tainly worth  trying,  even  if  it  should  have  no  other  effect  than  to 
make  our  leading  men  of  various  countries  acquainted  with  each 
other.  The  meeting  of  the  learned  and  worthy  will  produce  good 
fruits  in  any  event.  Some  central  point,  such  as  Paris,  might  be 
selected,  and  the  year  1870  would  perhaps  not  be  too  early.  We 
think  the  question  an  important  one  and  hope  to  see  it  discussed  and 
agitated  till  some  steps  are  taken  which  will  assure  a  practical  and 
a  beneficial  result. 

[The  Occident,  Aug.    1868,   Vol.  26,  pp.    193-200.] 


INVITATION  TO  SYNOD,   1869. 

Under  the  influence  of  the  completely  changed  conditions  in  which 
the  Jews  have  been  living  since  the  close  of  the  last  century,  new  and 
fresh  activity  arose  in  the  religious  province  with  the  result  that 
differing  views  and  many  conflicts  became  apparent Individ- 
uals and  congregations  interpreted  religious  practice  arbitrarily. 
Parties  arose  and  internal  divisions  and  violent  conflicts  took  place, 
whereby  the  condition  of  Judaism  became  more  and  more  precarious. 
A  religion  of  the  minority  can  be  exposed  to  no  greater  danger  than 
to  become  internally  divided  and  agitated  by  violent  party  strife.  It 
is  easily  seen  that  the  only  way  to  remedy  this  dangerous  confusion 
is  through  cooperation  and  union.  A  real  bettering  of  conditions 
can  only  be  brought  about  by  uniting  the  many  and  this  union  can 
only  be  produced  by  a  proper  and  sufficient  authority.  For  this 
purpose,  on  the  nth,  I2th,  and  I3th  of  August  of  last  year,  rabbis 
from  all  parts  of  Germany  and  Switzerland  met  at  Cassel  and  unan- 
imously decided  as  follows: 

(1)  To  call  a  Synod  composed  of  rabbis,  Jewish  scholars  and 
representatives  of  congregations. 

(2)  To  choose  committees,  who  are  to  formulate  propositions  for 
the  synod,  on  subjects  of  varied  Jewish  interest  and  explain  these  in 
memoirs. 

It  is  to  be  especially  noted  that  the  congregations  which  send  dele- 
gates to  this  first  synodal  assembly  by  no  means  bind  themselves  to 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  53 

accept  its  decisions  and  results.  What  is  desired  above  all  is  that  a 
start  be  given  to  effective  cooperation  free  from  any  external  com- 
pulsion." 

17  EINLADUNG  AN  DIE  RABBINEN,  JUDISCHEN  GELEHRTEN  UND 
GEMEINDEVORSTANDE  ZUR  SYNODALVERSAMMLUNG. 

Die  von  der  Rabbinerversammlung  zu  Cassel  gewahlte  Commission  hat 
folgende  Einladung  an  die  Vorstande  der  jiidischen  Gemeinden  ergehen  lassen. 

WOHLLOBLICHER  VORSTAND  ! 

Mit  dem  Ende  des  vorigen  Jahrhtmderts  traten  die  europaischen  Juden  in 
das  allegemeine  Culturleben  ein,  indem  allmalig  alle  Schranken  des  gewerb- 
lichen  Lebens,  des  geselligen  Verkehrs,  der  allgemeinen  und  wissenschaft- 
lichen  Bildung  und  endlich  des  offentlichen  Dienstes  niedersanken.  Unter 
der  Einwirkung  dieser  vollig  umgestalteten  Verhaltnisse  erwachte  auch  in 
unsere  Mitte  ein  neues  frisches  Leben  auf  dem  Gebiete  der  Religion,  in  dessen 
Folge  in  dem  Bereiche  des  Glaubens  verschiedene  Anschatmngen  und  im  wirk- 
lichen  Leben  vielfache  Conflicte  entstanden.  Bei  aller  unerschutterlichen 
Glaubenstreue  der  Juden,  welche  heute,  wie  in  der  ganzen  Vergangenheit,  alle 
Opfer  in  Thun  und  Dulden  zu  bringen  bereit  ist,  entstand  in  den  Individuen 
wie  in  den  Gemeinden  eine  wachsende  Zerfahrenheit,  eine  fast  unabsehbare 
Mannigfaltigkeit.  Die  Individuen  legten  sich  die  religiose  Praxis  ein  Jeder 
nach  seiner  Weise  zurecht,  und  diesem  Beispiel  folgten  die  Gemeinden  in 
ihren  cultuellen  Instituten.  Aus  diesen  Conflicten  gebaren  sich  aber  auch 
Parteiungen,  welche  innere  Spaltungen  hervorriefen,  und  an  vielen  Orten 
heftige  Kampfe  weckten,  wodurch  die  Lage  des  Judenthums  noch  verwor- 
rener  und  bedrohlicher  wurde.  Eine  Religion  der  Minderheit,  eine  Religion 
zerstreuter,  kleiner  Bruchtheile  kann  einer  grosseren  Gefahr  nicht  ausgesetzt 
sein,  als  innerlich  gespalten,  zerfallen,  schwankend,  und  von  heftigen  Partei- 
streitigkeiten  erschiittert  zu  werden.  Leicht  begreift  man  aber,  dass  man 
aus  diesen  Wirrsalen  nur  durch  die  Gemeinsamkeit,  durch  die  Vereinigung 
heranzukommen  vermoge.  Eine  wirkliche  Besserung  und  Hebung  der  Zu- 
stande  is  nur  durch  die  Verbindung  vieler  zu  Stande  zu  bringen,  und  diese 
all  ein  kann  eine  billige  und  angemessene  Autoritat  erlangen.  In  diesem  Sinne 
tagten,  wie  dariiber  der  in  der  Beilage  zur  A.  Zeitung  des  Judenthums  Nro. 
4  gegebene  Bericht  weitere  Kunde  gibt,  am  n.,  12.  und  13.  August  v.  J.  zu 
Cassel  24  Rabbinen  aus  alien  Theilen  Deutschlands  und  der  Schweitz.  Diesel- 
ben  erkannten,  dass  fiir  die  gegenwartigen  Zustande  im  Judenthum  das 
nachhaltigste  Heilmittel  in  der  Schopfung  einer  Vereinigung  der  wohlgesinn- 
testen  und  tiichtigsten  Krafte  bestehe,  dass  aber  eine  solche  nicht  in  dem  Zu- 
sammentritt  und  den  Beschliissen  einer  kleineren  oder  grosseren  Zahl  von 
Rabbinen  gefunden  werden  konne,  sondern  durch  den  Hinzutritt  von  des 


54  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

Judenthumes  kundigen  Gelehrten  und  vor  Allen  von  Vertretern  der  Ge- 
meinden  selbst  gebildet  werden  miisse.  Die  Versammlung  zu  Cassel  beschloss 
daher  einstimmig : 

(1)  Eine  Synodalversammlung  aus  Rabbinen,  judischen  Gelehrten  und  Ver- 
tretern der  Gemeinden,  welche  diese  letzteren  zu  diesem  Zwecke  entsenden, 
zu  berufen,  und  mit  dieser  Berufung  die  Unterzeichneten  zu  beauftragen. 

(2)  Commissionen  zu  erwahlen,  welche  aus  den  verschiedenen  Gebieten  des 
Judenthums     fur     die     Synodalversammlung    Antrage     formuliren     und     in 
Denkschriften  auseinander  setzen  und  begriinden  soil. 

Es  ist  einsichtlich,  dass  Seitens  der  Rabbmerversammlung  nichts  weiter  als 
diese  Zusammensetzung  aus  solchen  Mannern,  welche  den  theologischen 
Lebensberuf,  die  theologische  Wissenschaft  und  die  Gemeinden  vertreten, 
beschlossen  werden  durfte,  der  ersten  Synodalversammlung  hingegen  alle 
naheren  Bestimmungen  iiber  ihre  kiinftige  Gestaltung,  Geschaftsordnung, 
Abstimmungsmodus  u.  s.  w.  in  volliger  Freiheit  vorbehalten  bleiben  mussten. 
Die  Commissionen  iiber  den  Cultus,  das  Schulwesen,  das  Eherecht  und  die 
sonstigen  Ritualien  uberriahmen  die  Verpflichtung,  ihre  Arbeiten  so  recht- 
zeitig  vor  dem  Zusammentritt  der  Synodalversammlung  zu  veroffentlichen, 
dass  Alle,  die  an  ihr  theilnehmen  werden,  sich  vorher  geniigend  damit  be- 
kannt  machen  und  sie  priifen  konnen.  Auch  das  ist  kaum  nothig  hervorzu- 
heben,  dass  die  Gemeinden  durch  die  Beschickung  dieser  ersten  Synodalver- 
sammlung durchaus  noch  keine  unmittelbare  Verpflichtung  fur  die  Beschlusse 
und  Ergebnisse  derselben  ubernehmen.  Es  gilt  vielmehr  vor  Allem,  den 
Grundstein  zu  einer  grosseren  und  innigeren,  aber  vollig  freien  und  jedes 
ausseren  Zwanges  entkleideten  Verbindung,  zu  einer  sichtbaren  und  wirk- 
ungsvolleren  Gemeinsamkeit  und  Zusammengehorigkeit  zu  legen. 

Wir  treten  daher  an  die  judischen  Gemeinden  iiberhaupt  und  an  den 
wohlloblichen  Vorstand  insbesondere  heran,  urn  Wohldenselben  zur  Beschick- 
ung der  im  Laufe  des  Sommers  1869  zu  veranstaltenden  Synodalversammlung 
durch  einen  oder  mehrere  Vertreter  aufzuforderen.  Wir  thun  dies  im  Be- 
wusstsein,  dass  der  wohllobliche  Vorstand  sowie  die  anderweitige  Reprasen- 
tanz  seiner  Gemeinde  die  ganze  Bedeutung,  die  segensreiche  Tragweite  des 
beabsichtigen  Werkes  zu  wiirdigen  weiss.  Gewiss !  wir  zweifeln  nicht,  dass 
auch  Sie  sich  der  Gesammtheit  in  keiner  Weise  entziehen  wollen  und  mit 
Freuden  dazu  beitragen  werden,  fur  das  Heil  derselben  zu  sorgen,  fur  ihre 
Zukunft  thatig  zu  sein !  Wir  sehen  keinen  anderen  Weg  ab,  um  dem  fort- 
schreitenden  Zerfall  kraftig  und  zugleich  im  Geiste  unserer  Religion,  deren 
hochster  Grundsatz  die  Bruderlichkeit  ist,  sowie  im  Geiste  des  Glaubens  und 
der  Gewissensfreiheit  entgegen  zutreten.  Wir  finden  aber  auch  keinen  einzigen 
triftigen  Beweggrund,  der  von  der  Theilnahme  an  dieser  Versammlung  zu- 
riickhalten  konnte.  Wird  sich  doch  in  ihr  jede  Meinung,  jede  Richtung  frei 
aussern  konnen.  Ja,  nur  der  Friede  ist  aufrichtig,  nur  die  Einheit  eine  wahr- 
hafte,  welche  aus  der  Verstandigung,  aus  der  gegenseitigen  Uebereinkunft 
entspringen,  und  sollten  diese  auch  noch  mit  mancherlei  Ringen  und  Kampfen 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  55 

JEWISH  CHRONICLE  ON   SYNOD,   1869,  AS  QUOTED  IN  ALLGE- 
MEINE  ZEITUNG  DES  JUDENTHUMS. 

FOREIGN  COMMENTS  ON  THE  SYNOD. 

The  Jewish  Chronicle:  A  Synod  should  not  endeavor  to  enforce 
its  decisions  upon  unwilling  communities.  Religion  must  be  spon- 
taneous. Of  what  use  then  will  a  Synod  be,  it  may  be  asked,  if  its 
conclusions  cannot  be  enforced?  In  order  to  make  the  answer  to 
this  question  clear  the  Jews  as  a  whole  are  divided  into  three  classes, 
namely  (i)  the  materialistic  and  Christianized  Jews,  (2)  the  ultra- 
Orthodox  and  (3)  the  large  body  of  Jews  between  these  two  ex- 
tremes. This  third  class  believes  that  the  function  of  man  is  not 
to  cut  himself  off  from  the  world,  but  that  he  has  duties  to  perform 
which  demand  that  he  come  in  contact  with  his  fellow-beings  and 
exert  as  beneficial  an  influence  as  possible  upon  his  surroundings. 
These  men  feel  that  the  confining  walls  of  the  Ghetto  have  been 
destroyed  and  the  Jew  is  called  upon  to  take  part  in  European  cul- 
ture. Their  duties  are  not  only  those  of  Jews  but  of  men  and  citi- 
zens. The  problem  that  faces  them  is  how  to  reconcile  their  tradi- 
tional faith  with  the  activities  new  conditions  have  brought  with 
them.  To  whom  shall  they  turn  for  guidance?  Each  one  to  his 
own  spiritual  leader?  Confusion  alone  will  be  the  result. 

This  is  where  the  proposed  Synod  will  be  of  most  use.  A  Synod 
composed  of  scholars,  good  and  pious  men  should  be  established 
and  should  carefully  consider  those  questions  which  new  times  and 
new  needs  produce.  Such  a  body  should  deliberate  and  discuss 

verbunden  sein.  Alle  diese  Erwagungen  legen  wir  dem  wohlloblichem  Vor- 
stande  an's  Herz  und  ersuchen  ihn,  uns  seinen  Beschluss  iiber  Beschickung 
der  Synodversammlung  baldmoglichst,  spatestens  binnen  vier  Wochen,  mit- 
zutheilen,  und  zwar  an  die  Adresse  eines  der  ergebenst  Unterzeichneten. 

Mogen  wir  Alle,  eingedenk  dessen,  was  wir  dem  erhabenen  Erbtheil  unsref 
Vater,  der  Religion  der  vier  Jahrtausende  schuldig  sind;  unter  dem  Segen 
Gottes  das  Werk  'der  Vereinigung  vor  unsren  Augen  bald  erwachsen  sehen ! 

DR.  L.  ADLER,  DR.  L.  PHILIPPSON, 

Landrabbiner  in  Cassel.  enter.  Rabbiner  zu  Bonn. 

DR.  J.  AUB, 
Rabbiner  der  jiidischen  Gemeinde  in  Berlin. 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthunts,  Feb.  9,   1869,  No.  6,  pp.   101-102.] 


56  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

with  mature  reflection  and  announce  its  decisions  with  calmness  and 
seriousness.  Jews  of  the  third  class,  above-mentioned,  would 
hearken  gladly  to  such  a  Synod.  They  would  no  longer  be  obliged 
to  solve  their  religious  problems  for  themselves  individually,  and 
their  spiritual  guides,  when  asked  for  advice,  would  not  have  to  rely 
entirely  upon  the  confusing  code  of  religious  duties.  The  decisions 
of  the  Synod  would  be  at  hand.  It  would  not  be  necessary  that  all 
the  decisions  of  the  Synod  be  adopted  immediately.  Some  might 
be  accepted  while  others  would  be  rejected  according  to  the  ideas 
and  needs  of  the  individual  communities.  But  in  time,  all  of  them 
would  become  authoritative. 

[Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  No.  8,  Feb.   23,    1869.] 

PHILIPPSON.    1869. 
THE  APPROACHING  SYNOD. 

The  period  from  the  end  of  the  last  century  to  the  present  day  is 
an  important  epoch  in  the  history  of  the  Jews.  During  it  the  Jews 
have  gladly  abandoned  the  physical  and  spiritual  ghetto  in  which 
they  have  been  so  intolerantly  confined.  These  new  conditions 
have  brought  to  the  surface  many  conflicting  questions  concerning 
the  daily  material  life  of  the  Jew  and  the  strict  observance  of  re- 
ligious precepts,  ceremonies  and  forms.  A  new  view  of  Judaism 
is  being  taken,  bringing  with  it  a  change  in  the  religious  life,  and 
causing  to  spring  up  a  number  of  conflicting  parties. 

These  questions  clamoring  for  solution  must  be  solved  by  the 
Jewish  community  as  a  whole.  A  true  bettering  of  conditions  can 
only  be  brought  about  by  the  union  of  the  many,  and  such  an  union 
alone  can  be  properly  and  justly  authoritative. 

The  recent  rabbinical  convention  at  Cassel  in  considering  condi- 
tions in  Judaism  recognized  the  fact,  that  improvement  could  be 
brought  about  only  by  concerted  action,  and  this  not  only  on  the 
part  of  the  rabbis  but  with  the  cooperation  of  Jewish  scholars  and, 
above  all,  representatives  of  the  religious  communities.  The  mat- 
ter does  not  concern  itself  merely  with  theoretical  and  scientific 
discussions  and  decisions  but  with  questions  of  real  life  influenced  by 
a  religious  spirit.  Remedial  measures  cannot  be  worked  out  and 
enforced  by  the  professional  men  alone.  They  must  be  influenced 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  57 

by  men  of  practical  life  who,  by  their  management  of  congregational 
affairs,  are  acquainted  with  the  needs  and  tendencies  of  their  com- 
munities. 

[From  the  Allgemeine  Zeitung  des  Judenthums,  Jan.  26,  1869,  No.  4,  pp.  61-63.] 

DR.  B.  WECHSLER,  CHIEF-RABBI  OF  OLDENBURG,  1870. 

"  There  was  an  idea  that  the  Synod  is  a  continuation  of  the  Rab- 
binical Conferences.  The  task  seemed  the  same.  Yet  both  assem- 
blies are  in  many  important  respects  so  different,  that  the  Synod 
far  from  being  an  extension  is  in  reality  a  limitation,  straiten- 
ing and  concentration There  was  much  good,  color  and 

'  Richtung '  in  the  Rabinical  Conferences.  What  if  from  certain 
quarters  a  hue  and  cry  was  raised  on  account  of  their  bold  tend- 
ency ;  what  if  timid,  anxious,  cautious  rabbis  demonstratively  left 
the  Conference  with  eclat — there  was  no  wavering,  no  vacillating, 
no  empty  phraseology.  We  could  even  rejoice  in  the  bold,  brilliant, 
sometimes  eccentric,  word  of  the  sainted  Holdheim,  because  only 
honest,  sincere  men  of  scholarship  were  together,  who  strove  after 
an  adjustment  of  their  own  religious  conception,  and  who  desired 
to  learn  one  from  the  other,  and  then  to  give  the  results  of  trans- 
actions to  the  world.  Whosoever  reads  the  old  reports  of  the  Rab- 
binical Conferences  will  be  surprised  at  the  power  of  the  free  word 
among  us,  and  if  he  draws  a  parallel  with  the  reports  of  the  Synod 
in  Leipsic,  he  will  notice  quite  a  different  spirit,  and  not  always  the 
spirit  of  progress.  Did  we  go  backwards?  or  did  we  in  those  days 
go  too  far?  If  we  concede  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  then  the 
explanation  must  be  sought  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  In  a 
Synod,  we  (the  rabbis)  have  lost,  so  far  as  freedom,  candor  and 
unrestrainedness  are  concerned.  We  have  bound  ourselves  in  our 
discussions  and  resolutions.  The  representatives  of  congregations, 
while  often  far  in  advance  of  their  congregations,  nevertheless  in 
the  resolutions  keep  the  interest  of  their  congregations  more  in  mind 
than  the  cause  of  Judaism.  Their  first  consideration  is  the  welfare 
of  the  congregation ;  they  do  not  want  to  endanger  its  peace  and 
harmony.  I  need  not  tell  what  influence  this  must  have  on  their 
vote.  And  the  rabbis?  They  occupy  a  different  position  in  a 
Synod.  They  stand,  talk  and  vote,  as  it  were,  in  the  midst  of  their 


58  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

congregation,  some  are  even  especially  delegated.  It  is,  therefore, 
only  human  that  they  have  to  take  account  of  this  fact,  that  they 
feel  themselves  more  bound  and  straitened.  A  glance  at  the  steno- 
graphical  reports  of  the  Leipsic  Synod  will  convince  every  reader  of 
the  truth  of  this  statement.  From  such  mixed  assemblies  discus- 
sions of  purely  theoretical  nature  which  presuppose  thorough  famili- 
arity with  biblical  and  post-biblical  sources,  or  questions  of  science 
have  to  be  excluded.  Such  was  not  the  case  in  the  Rabbinical  Con- 
ferences. Things  seemingly  are  better  when  it  comes  to  the  solu- 
tion of  practical  questions.  But  there,  too,  we  find  semblance  with- 
out truth There  are  the  questions  of  the  revision  of  the 

dietary,  Sabbath,  and  marriage  laws.  But  the  Synod  approaches 
these  questions  with  hands  tied,  which  was  not  the  case  with  the 
Conference  of  Rabbis,  which  solved  such  questions  solely  on  the 
basis  of  theory,  of  theology,  of  scientific  research.  In  the  Synod 
this  is  different.  Suppose  the  important  question  of  the  Sabbath 
and  other  ceremonies  is  to  be  decided.  There  are,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  a  large  number  of  '  Synodalen/  who  without  ever  having  put 
the  questions,  have  long  ago  broken  "these  laws.  I  do  not  reproach 
them  on  this  account,  certainly  not,  not  even  that  'they  nevertheless 
are  '  Synodalen/  Perhaps  their  hearts  beat  for  all  that  just  as  warmly 
and  even  more  so  for  the  interests  of  Judaism.  They  are  perhaps 
the  best  and  most  worthy  men  in  their  congregations.  But  to  even 
discuss  such  questions  in  their  presence  would  mean  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment, and  to  vote  on  their  worthiness  and  religiosity.  Suppose  a  com- 
mittee should  declare  that  the  non-observance  of  certain  ceremonies 
is  a  gross  violation  of  the  Jewish  religion?'  How  shall  men  vote 
who  belong  to  the  habitual  violators  of  those  laws?  And  suppose 
these  very  violators  should  talk  and  vote  in  the  sense  of  the  com- 
mittee, I  should  consider  this  a  scandal,  a  discredit  to  the  whole 
Synod.  Resolutions  concerning  the  Sabbath,  etc.,  no  matter  how, 
would  be  disturbers  of  the  peace.  And  thus  there  are  nowadays 
still  so  many  men  among  us  who  deny  right  and  life  to  criticism, 
who  particularly  in  the  case  of  biblical  criticism,  are  always  ready 
with  a  '  categorial  imperative.'  This  fact  ought  to  be  a  warning ; 
Judaism  can  stand  difference  of  opinions.  But  it  cannot  bear  forced 
unity  and  compulsion  in  matters  of  creed  and  life.  Should  a  Synod 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  59 

attempt,  no  matter  how  gently,  to  exercise  such'  force,  it  will  dig  its 
own  grave."  S. 

[See  Geiger's  Zeitschrift  fur  Wissenschaft  und  Leben,  Vol.  VIII,  pp.  28-35.] 

M.  LAZARUS.    FROM  PRESIDENTIAL  SPEECH  AT  THE  OPENING 
OF  THE  SECOND  SYNOD. 

When  there  is  a  conflict  in  the  individual  congregation  confined 
to  a  few,  it  is  essential  to  be  able  to  refer  to  the  opinion  of  a 
great  Synod  chosen  from  many  congregations  and  composed  of 
many  learned  and  honored  men.  The  difficulty  of  every  reform 
within  Judaism  is  to  establish  an  authority.  This  has  always  been 
the  difficulty  and  will  continue  to  be  so  for  a  long  time  to  come ;  this 
difficulty  we  would  not  remove  by  any  means  hitherto  known.  All 
reform  within  Judaism  must  win  the  people,  must  appeal  to  convic- 
tion and  must  be  conclusive.  Authority  does  not  exist.  No  one 
has  it  and  no  one  should  desire  it.  We  do  not  speak  here  of  that 
small  party  which,  forsooth,  declares  that  an  absolute  authority  does 
exist,  namely  the  written  word  which  has  only  to  be  read  in 
order  to  know  what  Judaism  is  and  what  it  means.  In  reference  to 
this  we  need  not  take  counsel;  this  requires.no  speech;  we  might 
as  well  be  dumb ;  one  needs  only  to  read  what  the  Shulchan  Aruch 
including  Isserles  and  later  commentators  contains.18 

18  REDE  ZUR  EROFFNUNG  DER  ZWEITEN  SYNODE,  AUGSBURG,  1871. 

Wo  der  Streit  in  der  einzelnen  Gemeinde  ist,  wo  er  meist  auf  wenig  Kopfe, 
sagen  wir  es  auch  auf  wenig  Zungen  gestellt  ist,  da  kommt  es  gar  wesentlich 
darauf  an,  dass  man  hinweisen  kann  auf  eine  grosse  aus  vielen  Gemeinden 
gekommene,  von  vielen  gelehrten  und  verehrten  Mannern  beschickte  Synode, 
von  der  man  seine  Meinung  geholt  hat.  Das  ist  ja  von  jeher  die  Schwierig- 
keit  jeder  Reform  innerhalb  des  Judenthums  gewesen  und  wird  es  noch 
lange  hin  bleiben,  eine  Schwierigkeit,  die  wir  wenigstens  durch  bisher  be- 
kannte  Mittel  nicht  entfernen  mochten,  die  Schwierigkeit  namlich,  eine  Au- 
toritat herzustellen.  Alle  Reform  innerhalb  des  Judenthums  ist  verpflichtet, 
die  Gemiither  zu  gewinnen,  die  Gesinnungen  zu  sich  heriiberzuziehen,  die 
Ueberzeugungen  zu  pflanzen.  Es  gibt  keine  Autoritat,  Niemand  hat  sie  und 
Niemand  darf  sie  haben  wollen;  denn  von  jener  kleinen  Partei,  welche 
etwa  behauptet,  es  gebe  eine  absolute  Autoritat,  namlich  die  geschriebene ;  die 
geschriebene,  welche  man  bios  abzulesen  brauche,  um  zu  wissen,  was  Juden- 


60  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

The  communities  and  many  of  the  gentlemen  demand  that  the 
deliberations  and  transactions  of  the  Synod  be  practical.  Very  well, 
what  does  "  practical"  mean?  Gentlemen,  in  all  things  and  espe- 
cially in  religion — the  more  ideal,  the  more  practical.  A  man 
who  has  grain  and  wishes  to  turn  it  to  good  account  in  the  most 
practical  manner,  will  grind  it  into  flour  and  bake  bread  of  it. 
That  is  certainly  practical.  If  I  plant  my  corn  and  wait  until  the 
next  year  for  it  to  grow,  that  is  impractical.  Gentlemen,  he  who  is 
practical  in  such  a  manner  can  expect  no  harvest  in  the  following 
year.  The  Synod  has  to  concern  itself  not  only  with  the  small, 
pressing  questions  of  the  present,  but  must  provide  also  for  the  real 
and  true  growth  of  ideas  in  Judaism  which  will  confront  us  in  the 
future.  But,  I  admit,  that  he  who  plants  all  his  corn  relying  en- 
tirely upon  the  future  may  go  hungry  for  want  of  bread.  Therefore, 
it  becomes  necessary  that  we  have  a  care  to  think  and  work  for  the 
present,  and  at  the  same  time  see  to  it  that  not  only  small  modifica- 
tions and  adjustments  here  and  there  be  made  but  that  great 
thoughts  for  the  future  be  planted.  We  cannot  set  our  ideal  too 
high.  Slight  reforms  will  be  introduced  by  each  Synod  but  at  the 
same  time  certain  changes  will  be  made  and  certain  forms  and  tra- 
ditions abolished.  But,  "  Does  the  ploughman  plough  all  the  time 
to  sow  ?  Does  he  open  and  harrow  his  ground  continually  ?"  Isaiah 
xxviii:  24.)  If  we  consider  not  merely  the  insignificant,  if  we 
think  not  of  to-day  alone,  but  of  that  which  is  great  and  eternal  in 
our  religion  then  we  can  certainly  hope  that  the  congregations  will 
all  the  more  willingly  be  guided  by  us. 

It  is  usually  said  that  a  thing  to  be  practical  must  at  the  same  time 
be  opportune,  and  in  this  case  it  is  required  that  we  know  before- 
hand that  the  congregations  will  accept  the  Synod's  results.  But 
what  we  already  know  that  the  congregations  will  accept,  the  Synod 
has  no  need  to  teach.  The  task  of  the  Synod  is  to  pave  the  way  for 

thum  ist  und  was  Judenthum  heisst,  von  dieser  Partei  reden  wir  hier  nicht; 
denn  dazu  braucht  man  Nichts  zu  berathen,  dazu  braucht  man  auch  Nichts 
zu  sprechen,  dazu  darf  man  stumm  sein;  man  braucht  bios  mit  den  Augen 
zu  lesen,  was  der  Schulchan-Aruch  herunter  bis  zum  Rema  und  noch  Spa- 
teren  gedrtickt  enthalt. 

[Verhandlungen  der  Zweitcn  Israelitischen  Synode  zu,  Augsburg,  p.   13.     Berlin,   1873.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  61 

the  congregations,  guiding  and  at  the  same  time  teaching  them.  We 
would  be  moving  in  the  most  vicious  circle  if  we  waited  for  the 
congregations  to  accept  reforms  and  afterwards  have  us  propose  these 
very  reforms,  while  our  propositions  ought  to  be  really  of  such  a 
character  as  to  instruct  the  congregations.19 

19  Aber  freilich,  die  Gemeinden  verlangen  und  auch  viele  von  den  Herrn,  die 
Berathung,  die  Verhandlungen  miissten  praktisch  sein.  Nun  ja,  was  heisst 
"  praktisch  ? "  Meine  Herren !  In  alien  Dingen  und  in  religiosen  zumeist 
— je  idealer,  desto  praktischer.  Wer  Getreide  auf  seinem  Boden  hat  und  recht 
praktisch  es  verwerthen  will,  der  wird  Mehl  daraus  mahlen  und  Brod  backen, 
das  ist  gewiss  praktisch.  Vergleiche  damit :  Wenn  ich  Korn  in  die  Erde  lege 
und  bis  ins  nachste  Jahr  auf  Wachstum  warte,  das  ist  doch  unpraktisch. 
Meine  Herren !  Wer  so  praktisch  ist,  der  hat  eben  keine  Ernte  im  nachsten 
Jahre  zu  erwarten.  Die  Synode  hat  nicht  bios  fur  das  tagliche  Brod  der 
kleinen  brennenden  Fragen,  sondern  fur  das  wirkliche  und  wahrhafte  Wachs- 
thum  der  Ideen  im  Judenthum  zu  sorgen,  die  kiinftig  aufgehen  sollen.  Aber 
freilich,  wer  all  sein  Korn  nur  in  die  Erde  legte,  damit  es  wachse,  und  sich 
nur  auf  die  Zukunft  verliesse,  konnte  dariiber  verhungern,  er  hatte  kein 
Brod  zu  essen.  Daher  handelt  es  sich  darum,  dass  wir  weise  und  wohl  beach- 
ten,  wie  wir  theils  fur  die  Gegenwart  denken,  fur  sie  arbeiten,  aber  immer 
auch  darauf  bedacht  seien,  dass  nicht  bloss  kleine  Modificationen,  kleine 
Einrichtungen  hier  und  dort,  sondern  dass  grosse  Gedanken  aufgepflanzt 
werden ;  nicht  hoch  genug  konnen  wir  das  Ziel  uns  stecken.  Es  handelt  sich 
darum,  dass  immer  kleine  Reformen  durchgefiihrt  werden,  auf  jeder  Synode; 
vollends  aber  gewisse,  ganz  bestimmte  Einrichtungen  modificirt,  bestimmte 
einzelne  Formen,  bestimmte  Ueberlieferungen  abgestelt  werden.  Aber, 
"Welcher  Pfliiger  pfliigt  jeglichen  Tags,  um  zu  saen,  lockert  wieder  auf  und 
glattet  seinen  Boden"  (Jesaias  28,  24).  Aber  wenn  wir  nicht  eben  bios 
fur  das  kleine  sorgen,  wenn  wir  nicht  fortwahrend  bios  an  den  Tag  denken, 
sondern  an  das,  was  gross  und  ewig  ist  in  unserer  Religion,  dass  dieses  hoch 
und  heilig  gehalten  werde,  dann  haben  wir  allerdings  auch  zu  hoffen,  dass 
die  Gemeinde  uns  besser  folgt. 

Dies  ist  der  gewohnliche  Ausdruck  auch  fiir  das  Praktische,  dass  es  oppor- 
tun  sei;  dass  man  bereits  weiss,  die  Gemeinde  werde  es  auch  annehmen. 
Allein  das,  wovon  man  bereits  weiss  dass  es  die  Gemeinde  annehmen  werde, 
braucht  die  Synode  nicht  erst  zu"lehren;  die  Aufgabe  der  Synode  ist  es  eben, 
lehrend  mit  ihren  Gedanken  den  Gemeinden  voranzugehen.  Wir  bewegen 
uns  sonst  in  dem  iibelsten  Cirkel,  den  es  nur  gibt,  dass  wir  von  der  Gemeinde 
erwarten,  sie  werde  die  Reform  annehmen,  dann  wollen  wir  sie  vorschlagen, 
indess  unsere  Vorschlage  doch  das  sind,  was  die  Gemeinden  belehren  soil. 

[Ibid.,  p.  17.] 


62  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

MISSION  OF  THE  SYNOD. 

(1)  Since  the  days  of  its  inception  in  hoary  antiquity,  Judaism 
has  passed  through  many  phases  of  development  and  in  them  has 
unfolded  its  inmost  being  more  and  more. 

(2)  A  new  and  highly  significant  crisis  has  occurred  in  its  his- 
tory.    The  spirit  of  the  true  knowledge  of  God  and  of  pure  morality 
is  filling  more  and  more  the  consciousness  of  mankind  and  is  im- 
pressing itself  constantly  on  the  life  of  the  nations,  on  state  and 
people,  on  art  and  science.     Judaism  joyfully  recognizes  in  this 
phenomenon  an  approach  to  those  aims  which'  have  at  all  times 
guided  its  course  through  history. 

(3)  The  essence  and  mission  of  Judaism  remain  unchangeable 
in  themselves,  but  the  mighty  change  which  is  taking  place  con- 
stantly in  the  views  of  all  mankind,  and  of  the  followers  of  Judaism 
in  particular,  as  well  as  the  entirely  new  position  of  the  latter  among 
the  nations,  has  called  forth  an  urgent  necessity  for  reorganization 
of  many  of  the  forms  of  Judaism. 

(4)  Judaism  from  its  inception  always  stood  for  knowledge  and 
has  likewise  constantly  premised  and  demanded  harmony  between 
thought,  feeling  and  deed.     Along  this  line  it  seeks  courageously 
and  confidently  to  effect  the  above-mentioned  change.     It  follows 
only  its  innermost  instincts  when,  with  full  esteem  for  the  higher 
and  eternal  possessions  of  life  and  with  due  recognition  and  rever- 
ence for  the  past,  guided  by  the  results  of  earnest,  scientific  research, 
it  strives  to  do  away  with  antiquated  and  inappropriate  customs  and 
to  forge  ahead  in  consonance  with  the  spirit  of  the  times. 

(5)  The  Synod  aims  to  be  the  organ  of  this  development.     In  it 
the  living  convictions  and  efforts  of  Judaism  of  to-day  are  to  find 
decided  expression.     With  clear  purpose,  it  aims  to  bring  about  the 
result  that  the  reorganization  striven  for  during  several  decades 
should  be  as  widely  acceptable  as  possible  and  should  be  carried  to 
a  successful  conclusion  with  due  regard  to  the  needs  of  all  our  co- 
religionists.    It  would  protect  the  bond  of  unity,  which  twines  about 
all  our  coreligionists,  against  disintegration,  and  would  further  with 
all  its  power  the  common  higher  interests  in  life  and  science. 

(6)  The  Synod  claims  for  its  resolutions  no  other  validity  than 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  63 

> 

that  which  the  force  of  truth,  of  sacred  earnestness  and  of  firm  con- 
viction imparts.  It  knows,  however,  that  this  power,  the  only  one 
which  should  be  effective  in  the  realm  of  religion,  is  irresistible  and 
must  finally  gain  the  victory  in  spite  of  all  difficulties  and  obstruc- 
tions. 

(7)  While  the  Synod  seeks  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  times,  it 
is  convinced  of  the  fact  that  it  is  working  for  the  maintenance  of  Ju- 
daism.    Thus  it  feels  itself  in  unison  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism  in 
its  whole  historical  development,  at  one  with  all  its  coreligionists  of 
whatever  tendency,  and  hopes  to  bring  about  reconciliation  not  im- 
mediately, it  is  true,  and  not  through  the  denial  of  convictions, 
but  through  the  spirit  of  truth  which,  according  to  our  old  teachers 
is  the  essential  condition  of  peace. 

(8)  The  mission  of  the  Synod  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the  above 
declarations.     Considering  the  intimate  relation  existing  between  re- 
ligious life  and  social  and  political  conditions,  it  seems  rather  to  the 
Synod  to  be  a  peremptory  duty,  that  in  the  matters,  which  will  come 
before  it,  fitting  expression  be  given  to  the  consciousness  of  relation- 
ship as  regards  the  political  and  social  standing  of  our  coreligionists.20 

[Ibid.,  p.  253.] 

20 (i)  Das  Judenthum  hat  seit  seinem  in  die  friihe  Vorzeit  hinaufreichenden 
Bestande  verschiedene  Phasen  der  Entwickelung  durchlaufen  und  in  densel- 
ben  sein  innerstes  Wesen  immer  mehr  entfaltet. 

(2)  Ein   neuer,    hochst   bedeutungsvoller   Wendepunkt   ist    in    seiner    Ge- 
schichte  eingetreten.     Der  Geist  der  wahren  Gotteserkenntniss  und  der  reinen 
Sittlichkeit  erfiillt  immer  mehr  das  Gesammtbewusstsein  der  Menschheit  und 
pragt  sich  im  Leben  der  Volker,  im  Staat  und  Burgerthum,  in  Kunst  und 
Wissenschaft   immer    deutlicher   aus.      Das    Judenthum    erkennt    hierin   mit 
Freuden  eine  Annaherung  an  die  Ziele,  die  ihm  auf  seiner  geschichtlichen 
Bahn  zu  alien  Zeiten  vorangeleuchtet  haben. 

(3)  Wesen  und  Aufgabe  des  Judenthums  bleiben  an  und  fur  sich  unver- 
anderlich  dieselben;  der  machtige  Umschwung  jedoch,  der  in  den  Anschau- 
ungen  der  gesammten  Menschheit  und  der  Bekenner  des  Judenthums  insbe- 
sondere    sich    unaufhaltsam   vollzieht,    sowie    die    vollig   veranderte    Stellung 
desselben  inmitten  der  Volker,  hat  ein  dringendes  Bediirfniss  der  Neugestalt- 
ung  vieler  seiner  Formen  hervorgerufen. 

(4)  Das  Judenthum  hat  von  seinem  Anbeginne  auf  Erkenntniss  gedrungen 
und  in  gleicher  Weise  stets  die  Uebereinstimmung  zwischen  Gedanken,  Ge- 
fiihl    und    That    vorausgesetzt    und    gefordert     In    diesem    Sinne    sucht    es 
muthig  und  zuversichtlich  jene  Umwandlung  ins  Werk  zu  setzen  und  folgt 


64  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

EMIL  G.  HIRSCH,  1880. 

"  From  certain  quarters  complaints  are  heard  that  there  exists  no 
norm  and  no  rule  within  Judaism,  and  that  in  order  to  put  an  end 
to  the  arbitrariness  of  the  individual  it  is  high  time  to  call  a  Synod, 

nur  seinem  innersten  Grundtriebe,  wenn  es  in  voller  Werthschatzung  der  von 
ihm  bewahrten,  hoheren  und  ewigen  Lebensgiiter,  mit  aller  Anerkennung  und 
Ehrerbietung  gegen  die  Vergangenheit  nach  den  Ergebnissen  ernster,  wissen- 
schaftlicher  Forschung  bestrebt  ist,  das  Veraltete  und  Zweckwidrige  zu  be- 
seitigen  und  sich  im  Geiste  der  neuen  Zeit  fortzubilden. 

(5)  Die  Synode  will  ein  Organ  dieser  Fortbildung  sein.     In  ihr  sollen  die 
im  heutigen  Judenthum  lebenden   Ueberzeugungen  und   Bestrebungen  ihren 
entschiedenen    Ausdruck    finden.     Sie    will    mit    klarem    Bewusstsein    dahin 
wirken,  dass  die  im  Judenthume  seit  mehreren  Jahrzehnten  angestrebte  Um- 
gestaltung  von  einem  moglichst  einheitlichen  Geiste  geleitet  und  mit  moglichst 
gleicher  Rucksicht  auf  die   Bediirfnisse   aller   unserer  Religionsgenossen   zu 
einem   gedeihlichen    Ziele    gefiihrt    werde.     Sie   will    das    Band    der    Einheit, 
welches  die  Religionsgenossen  umschlingt,  vor  Lockerung  bewahren  und  die 
gemeinsamen,  hoheren  Interessen  im  Leben  und  Wissenschaft  nach  Kraften 
fordern. 

(6)  Die  Synode  nimmt  fur  ihre  Beschliisse  keine  andere  peltung  in  An- 
spruch  als   diejenige,  welche   die   Kraft   der  Wahrheit,    des  heiligen   Ernstes 
und  der  festen  Ueberzeugung  verleiht;  sie  weiss  aber  dass  diese  Kraft,  die 
einzige,  welche  im  Gebiete  der  Religion  wirken  soil,  eine  unwiderstehliche  ist, 
und  zuletzt  trotz  aller   Schwierigkeiten  und   Hemmnisse   den   Sieg  erlangen 
muss. 

(7)  Indem  die  Synode  den  Anforderungen  der  Zeit  nachzukommen  strebt, 
halt  sie  sich  davon  versichert,   dass  sie  fur  die  Erhaltung  des  Judenthums 
wirkt.     In  dieser  Weise  fuhlt  sie  sich  eins  mit  dem  Geiste  des  Judenthums  in 
seiner  ganzen  geschichtlichen  Entwickelung,  eins  mit  alien  ihren  Religions- 
genossen, welcher  Richtung  sie  auch  folgen  mogen,  und  hofft  ein  Werk  der 
Versohnung  zu  stiften,  freilich  nicht  fur  den  nachsten  Augenblick  und  nicht 
durch  Verleugnung  der  Gesinnungen,  sondern  durch  den  Geist  der  Wahrheit, 
der,  dem  Ausspruche  unserer  alten  Lehrer  gemass,  die  Grundbedingung  des 
Friedens  ist. 

(8)  Die  Aufgabe  der  Synode  soil  durch  die  vorhergehende  Erklarung  nicht 
abgeschlossen   sein.    Bei   dem   innigen   Zusammenhange   zwis'chen    dem   reli- 
giosen  Leben  und  den  socialen  und  burgerlichen  Verhaltnissen  erscheint  es 
vielmehr  der  Synode  als  unabweisliche  Pflicht,  in  den  an  sie  herantretenden 
Fallen  dem  Bewusstsein   der  Zusammengehorigkeit   auch   in   Beziehung  auf 
die   biirgerliche   und   sociale    Stellung   der   Religionsgenossen    den   angemes- 
senen  Ausdruck  zu  verleihen. 

{Ibid.,  p.  253.] 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  65 

which  once  for  all  should  decide  all  questions.  Those  who  argue 
thus  betray  only  ignorance  of  the  Jewish  spirit.  Generally  it  is 
orthodoxy  which  cries  for  a  Synod,  although  the  code  of  Joseph 

Karo  with  the  notes  of  Moses  Isserles  ought  to  be  its  norm 

But  also  in  our  own  camp  the  cry  for  a  Synod  is  heard.  I  think  the 
anarchy,  which  by  advocates  of  a  Synod  is  claimed  to  be  rampant 
in  Judaism,  is  greatly  exaggerated.  Which  are  the  burning  ques- 
tions of  the  day,  that  are  anxiously  waiting  for  decision  by  a 
Synod?  Perhaps  the  question  of  ritual?  The  German  Rabbinical 
Conferences  of  1844  to  1846  and  of  1869  in  Philadelphia  have  laid 
down  the  principles  which  guided  the  German  and  American  authors 
of  prayer-books  in  reform  congregations  to  this  day.  Suppose  a 
Synod  should  make  a  new  prayer-book?  Will  all  congregations  in- 
troduce it?  I  doubt  it.  Hence  we  should  simply  have  one  more 
prayer-book.  The  prayer-book  was  never  the  bond  uniting  all  Jew- 
dom.  The  thought  that  we  should  pray  in  all  synagogues  according 
to  one  pattern  (Schablone)  is  borrowed  from  Catholicism.  Or  is 
a  new  '  Eben  Hae'zer '  needed  for  the  regulation  of  the  marital  re- 
lations? The  Philadelphia  Conference  has  solved  this  question. 
Then  remain  the  questions  of  Sabbath  and  acceptance  of  Proselytes. 
It  is  illusion  to  imagine  that  any  resolutions  of  a  Synod  can  heal  the 
deep  conflict  betwen  doctrine  and  life.  While  in  political  questions 
majorities  decide,  they  are  not  decisive  in  matters  of  religion.  Re- 
ligious principles  are  not  political  rules,  and  cannot  be  settled  by 
resolutions  of  a  Synod.  And  how  could  a  Synod  enforce  its  deci- 
sions?" S. 

[Zeitgeist,  I,  pp.  200-201,  1880.] 

IBID.,  1881. 

"  Granted  that  the  opinion  of  individuals  are  subject  to  change. 
Are  the  opinions  of  the  majority  not  subject  to  the  same  dangers? 
Majorities  are  recruited  from  individuals,  and  with  the  change  of 
individual  views  follows  a  change  of  the  views  of  the  majority.  The 
only  means  to  check  such  changes  in  politics  is  the  autocracy,  and  in 
religion  an  infallible  papacy  with  a  well-organized  hierarchy.  If 
majorities  are  in  the  right  against  minorities,  why  do  the  Jews  not 
embrace  Christianity,  Lslamism  or  Buddhism,  the  latter  being  nu- 


66  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

merically  the  strongest  religious  community?  We  are  astonished 
that  such  argument  should  be  used  before  a  Jewish  audience.  The 
whole  Jewish  history  is  a  protest  against  these  views.  Majority  of 
votes  is  no  criterion  for  the  truth  of  a  religious  conviction.  For 
this  truth  our  ancestors  have  bled  and  suffered.  A  Synod  of  400 
priests  of  Baal  on  Mount  Carmel  and  only  one  Elijah,  this  is  the 
picture  of  the  inner  history  of  Judaism.  *  Not  because  ye  are  numer- 
ically more  than  other  nations  '  is  the  parole  of  Israel's  messianic 
mission.  Why  was  Maimonides  censured  by  his  opponent  from 
Posquieres  ?  Because  Maimonides  attempted  to  substitute  as  author- 
ity for  the  Jews  a  code  of  laws  instead  of  the  opinions  of  individual 
teachers  of  law.  All  the  catechisms  and  prayer-books  agree  in  the 
essential  principles  of  Judaism.  And  liturgy  and  Minhagim  were  at 
no  time  uniform  among  us.  Or  shall  the  Synod  impose  on  Judaism  a 
new  Dogmatic?  Shall  a  Synod  by  a  majority  vote  decide,  whether 
in  the  matter  of  biblical  criticism,  Wellhausen  or  Delitzsch,  Popper  or 
Curtis,  Geiger  or  Graetz,  Kohler  or  Wise,  are  in  the  right?  And 
suppose  the  Synod  decides,  will  one  of  the  opposing  parties  peni- 
tentially  cease  to  express  his  scientific  convictions  ?  If  so,  the  Synod 
will  create  hypocrites.  And,  are  hypocrites  fit  to  occupy  Jewish 
pulpits  ?  The  Synod  can  only  do  harm.  Instead  of  furthering  unity 
it  will  destroy  the  bond  of  union.  Where  there  is  much  light  there 
must  be  much  shade.  Individualism  may  also  have  its  disadvantages. 
But  who  will  not  prefer  the  many-colored  coat  of  Joseph  to  the 
uniform  of  the  soldier  or  to  the  stripes  of  the  convict?  "  S. 

[Zeitgeist,  II,  pp.  256-7,  Aug.  4,  1881.] 

WISE.  1881. 

THE  SYNOD. 
MR.  PRESIDENT  AND  GENTLEMEN  : 

In  our  last  annual  meeting  a  committee  was  appointed  to  take 
into  consideration  the  advisability  of  convening  and  organizing  a 
Synod  of  American  Rabbis  to  be  a  permanent  body.  Having  been 
named  chairman  of  that  committee,  I  wrote  to  my  colleagues  to  solicit 
their  opinions  and  suggestions  on  the  subject,  and  received  an 
undecided  answer  from  one  and  a  negative  answer  from  the  other. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  67 

The  former  being  a  private  letter,  I  mention  no  name ;  the  latter  was 
by  the  Rev.  James  K.  Gutheim,  of  New  Orleans,  who  declares  him- 
self averse  to  the  Synod,  and  gives  his  reasons  therefor. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  I  cannot  report  on  the  subject,  and 
must  ask  further  time  unless  the  committee  be  discharged.  I  cannot 
report,  because  my  personal  opinion  is  not  the  opinion  of  a  committee, 
and  I  am  in  favor  of  establishing  and  upholding  a  Synod  of  American 
Rabbis.  All  I  can  do,  and  with  your  permission  will  do,  is  to  give 
expression  to  some  of  the  motives  which  actuated  me  in  forming  this 
decision. 

WHAT  A  SYNOD  Is. 

A  Synod  is  a  perpetual  body,  consisting  of  all  the  officiating  rabbis 
and  professors  of  the  college  or  colleges,  who,  by  a  vote  of  their 
respective  congregations  or  by  their  own  declaration,  have  attached 
themselves  to  that  body. 

The  Synod  meets  at  stated  times  and  places,  discusses  and  decides, 
by  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  the  members  present,  all  questions 
concerning  Judaism,  brought  before  it  by  any  of  its  members  or  by 
any  congregation ;  and  is  guided  in  its  discussions  and  decisions  by 
a  code  of  laws  which  it  enacts  and  from  time  -to  time  may  amend  for 
its  own  government. 

The  decisions  of  the  Synod  are  advisory  to  the  congregations  and 
individuals,  and  binding  upon  the  members  of  the  Synod ;  i.  e.,  the 
Synod  does  not  interfere  with  the  autonomy  of  the  congregations  or 
the  conscience  of  the  individual,  but  must  demand  the  full  support  of 
its  own  members. 

These  three  brief  paragraphs  contain  the  outlines  of  what  I  think 
a  Synod  signifies.  In  organizing  the  same  we  can  start  only  from 
the  statu  quo.  Whoever  is  now  the  elected  rabbi  of  a  congregation 
must  be  accepted  as  such,  because  we  have  no  right  and  no  means 
to  go  behind  the  returns  of  the  congregation.  The  Synod  in  exist- 
ence might  enact  qualification  laws  for  its  own  protection  as  well  as 
for  the  protection  of  the  congregations  against  unauthorized  persons. 
If  there  are  now  any  rabbis  engaged  in  our  country  who  are  not 
entitled  to  that  office  and  its  functions,  it  is  an  evil  which  cannot  be 
remedied  now,  although  a  Synod  might  check  it  for  the  future.  I  do 
not  wish  to  be  understood  as  personally  objecting  to  any  rabbi  in 


68  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

office  now  anywhere  in  this  country,  for,  as  far  as  my  knowledge  ot 
them  goes,  they  are  honorable  men  whose  sincerity  and  piety  I  have 
no  right  and  no  cause  to  doubt. 

It  is  evident  also  that  a  Synod  can  only  resolve  and  decide  and 
not  execute,  as  none  of  us,  being  Israelites  and  American  citizens, 
would  be  willing  to  submit  to  ecclesiastical  coercion  or  to  enforce  it 
upon  others.  Freedom  is  the  foundation  of  Judaism.  Neither 
religion  nor  morals  can  be  enforced,  for  if  enforced  they  are  religion 
and  morals  no  longer.  Freedom,  however,  includes  not  independ- 
ence from  reason,  whatever  reason  dictates  is  self-enforcing;  it 
includes  not  the  self-delusion  that  I,  the  individual,  know  better  than 
all  my  associates,  for  all  know  better  than  one ;  nor  does  it  include 
licentiousness,  that  I  must  be  permitted  to  do  as  I  please,  for  society 
lias  interests  and  duties  apart  from  the  individual.  Therefore,  it 
interferes  with  no  man's  freedom  if  he  submits  his  views  and  propo- 
sitions to  the  judgment  of  many,  and  submits  to  the  decision  of  the 
majority  if  he  cannot  convince  them  to  think  like  him.  Obedience 
to  law  is  no  invasion  of  liberty.  Submission  to  argument  curtails 
nobody's  freedom.  To  be  governed  by  the  will  of  the  majority  is 
the  safeguard  of  all  free  institutions,  and  the  right  to  oppose  it  by 
legitimate  argument  is  inalienable. 

It  is  no  violation  of  principle,  no  transgression  against  reason,  and 
no  sin  against  Judaism  to  submit  to  the  arguments  and  decisions  of 
the  majority ;  but  it  is  a  necessity  now,  as  it  was  in  the  days  of  the 
Tana'im,  that  a  Synod  should  insist  upon  that  one  point,  vis.,  that 
every  one  of  its  members  should  be  bound  in  conscience  and  honor 
to  sustain  the  body  by  not  acting  contrary  to  its  resolutions  and 
decisions.  Without  this  point  a  Synod  is  a  mere  debating  society, 
which  we  need  not  establish,  as  we  can  do  all  the  debating  in  this 
Literary  Association.  A  member  can  resign  from  the  Synod  or  be 
suspended  for  non-compliance  with  its  regulations  and  the  Synod 
remain  intact ;  but  a  Synod,  as  little  as  a  State  society,  association  or 
lodge,  cannot  remain  intact,  if  the  will  of  its  individual  members  is 
superior  to  that  of  the  majority.  Two  sovereign  wills  cannot  govern 
simultaneously.  None  can  imagine  a  Synod  without  the  obligation 
of  its  members  not  to  act  contrary  to  its  decisions. 

I  need  not,  in  presence  of  all  these  learned  gentlemen,  point  to  the 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  69 

history  of  Israel  to  substantiate  my  arguments.  All  of  them  know 
the  Bible,  Talmud,  Josephus  and  the  other  records  of  Synods,  up  to 
that  of  Leipzig,  and  so  all  of  them  must  confess  that  the  institution 
is  historically  Jewish,  and  was  always  sustained  by  the  majority  rule 
as  established  by  the  Tana'im.  (man1?  D"3i  nn«)  I  only  beg  permis- 
sion to  state,  because  it  is  recorded  nowhere,  that  as  long  as  there 
were  Synods  in  any  form,  Judaism  was  a  living,  progressive,  and 
animating  system  of  development  to  higher  conditions.  When  the 
Synods  ceased  the  iron  scepter  of  casuistics  was  taken  up  and  laid 
in  chains,  the  free-born  daughter  of  heaven.  Thousands  of  stere- 
otyped law  paragraphs  replaced  the  free  spirit  and  free  word.  His- 
tory argues  in  my  favor,  centuries  of  experience  plead  my  cause.  I 
submit  the  case  to  the  judges. 

THE  NECESSITY  OF  A  SYNOD  Now. 

I  have  yet  to  say  a  few  more  words  in  defense  of  my  humble 
opinion,  just  a  few  words  in  reply  to  the  legitimate  question.  "Is 
a  Synod  necessary  now  and  here?  "  I  suppose  that  everybody  pres- 
ent knows  that  up  to  this  century  all  Israel  has  been  guided  by  the 
Bible  and  the  Rabbinical  code.  These  were  the  center  of  our  union, 
regulating  all  our  congregational  affairs  and  relations,  also  the  affairs 
and  relations  of  the  Jew  as  such.  All  questions  of  doctrine  or  dis- 
cipline, of  duty  or  observance  were  decided  according  to  the  code,  and 
there  was  unity.  With  the  exception  of  the  few  Karaites  and  Kabbal- 
ists,  there  was  uniformity  among  all  Jews  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 
The  variety  of  local  customs  (DMHJD)  was  no  disturbing  element, 
because  all  men  of  letters  considered  it  non-essential.  Any  rabbi 
was  enabled  to  decide  any  ordinary  question  for  his  flock  by  the  code, 
and  every  man's  conscience  was  satisfied  with  the  information  that 
the  Law  so  ordained  it. 

This  center  of  union  is  destroyed.  The  Rabbinical  code  has  lost  its 
authority.  The  Bible — well,  I  need  not  review  the  various  stand- 
points occupied  by  its  expounders,  as  you  know  the  public  secret. 
The  doctrine !  Alas !  I  have  a  recollection  of  one  hundred  and 
twelve  catechisms  and  forty-two  books  of  worship,  which  have  but 
that  one  element  in  common,  that  they  are  all  printed.  The  union  of 
Israel  is  destroyed,  the  negation  has  remained,  and  negation  is  not 


7o  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

religion.  We  are  not  Christians,  not  Mohammedans,  not  heathens, 
not  atheists,  not  deists,  that  is  the  element  we  have  in  common. 
Rabbi  A  cannot  tell  how  Rabbi  B  will  decide  this  or  'that  question, 
because  he  is  guided  by  his  individual  standpoint.  No  congregation 
can  predict  what  doctrine  its  preacher  will  advance  next,  because  a 
man's  opinions  are  liable  to  change.  No  individual  can  tell  what  one 
must  actually  believe  or  do  to  live  up  to  his  faith  as  a  conscientious 
Jew,  without  being  contradicted  by  his  neighbor.  It  is  useless  to  hide 
it,  we  have  landed  in  chaos.  We  have  as  many  sects  as  congre- 
gations, the  number  almost  as  many  as  there  are  individuals.  That 
we  are  so  in  theory  only,  and  not  also  in  fact,  has  its  cause  in  the  in- 
destructible religious  consciousness  of  our  people,  in  the  inherited 
conscience  and  faith  of  the  non-speculative  class,  the  unconscious 
and  indomitable  spirit  of  piety  peculiar  to  the  Jew.  None  can  tell 
how  long  this  "  merit  of  the  fathers  "  (  nnx  no?  )  will  hold  out  ; 
hence  none  can  tell  how  long  under  the  influence  of  these  dissolving 
agencies  Judaism  will  last  in  this  country.  At  present  no  rabbi  can 
decide  any  question  without  being  contradicted  by  some  one  of  his 
colleagues,  no  individual  can  be  sure  of  his  opinion;  hence  I  opine 
none  will  undertake  to  decide  the  above  question  without  contra- 
diction. 

Right  here  two  questions  arise,  vis.,  Are  the  Israelites  of  this 
country  willing  that  their  descendants  should  give  up  Judaism?  Is 
it  the  rabbi's  duty  to  conserve  Judaism  or  to  accommodate  his  flock 
to  the  so-called  spirit  of  the  age?  The  first  question,  methinks,  is 
answered  practically  and  decidedly  by  the  works  of  this  generation. 
Here  are  your  gorgeous  temples  in  all  parts  of  the  country,  your 
asylums,  hospitals,  societies,  and  funds ;  here  is  the  Union  of  Amer- 
ican Hebrew  Congregations,  the  College  with  a  Jewish  faculty ;  here 
are  your  congregations ;  all  of  which  have  been  established  and  are 
supported  at  an  enormous  expense,  with  wonderful  enthusiasm  and 
sacrifices,  by  the  present  generation.  Hence  the  Israelites  of  this 
country  are  evidently  not  willing  that  our  descendants  should  desert 
Judaism.  There  are  undoubtedly  a  number  of  latitudinarians  and 
servants  of  indifferentism  among  our  people ;  but  the  vast  majority 
reply  in  a  mighty  chorus,  we  and  our  descendants  shall  be  faithful  to 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  71 

the  God  and  the  cause  of  Israel.     On  every  occasion  they  repeat  the 
exclamation  of  the  fathers  on  Mount  Carmel  : 

D'nSxn  Kin  'n 

Is  not  the  rabbi  a  Jew?  is  the  question  with  which  we  reply  to 
our  second  question.  If  a  Jew  he  is,  it  must  be  his  sincere  desire  to 
conserve  Judaism.  It  must  be  his  first  and  most  solemn  duty,  for 
he  is  appointed  a  shepherd  in  Israel  ;  and  none  doubts  that  this  is  the 
first  object  in  the  mind  of  every  rabbi  in  Israel.  Necessity  compels 
them  to  harmonize  the  dicta  of  Judaism  with  the  pressing  demands 
of  the  age,  to  conciliate  the  teachings  of  Israel  with  the  spirit  of  this 
progressive  generation  and  country.  They  yield  in  order  to  win, 
they  abolish  in  order  to  conserve,  they  cut  off  the  dead  limbs  in 
order  to  rejuvenate  the  tree.  The  intention  is  excellent,  the  work 
is  efficient,  but  it  threatens  disintegration  and  dissolution  ;  because  it 
is  the  one  man's  work,  it  lacks  the  caution  and  circumspection  of  col- 
lective wisdom,  the  maturity  of  united  deliberation,  the  unity  which 
grows  out  of  plurality. 

Therefore,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  every  rabbi  must  have  pro- 
posed to  himself  the  question,  How  shall  the  threatened  evil  be 
remedied  ?  None  of  us  alone  can  do  this,  that  is  certain  ;  perhaps  all 
of  us  united  with  the  help  of  God  can  accomplish  it.  The  ancient 
authority  which  has  kept  us  up  and  together  is  no  more;  we  must 
establish  a  new  central  authority  to  give  force  and  consistency  to  the 
sacred  cause  for  which  we  live,  direction  and  weight  to  our  labors, 
unity  and  harmony  to  our  exertions  in  behalf  of  Israel;  to  conserve 
and  elevate,  to  protect  and  support  one  another,  to  bring  law  and 
order  out  of  this  chaos  ;  and  all  Israel  shall  know  and  be  sure  that 
there  is  a  positive  Judaism,  which  is  taught  and  expounded  alike  by 
all  the  teachers  of  our  faith. 


I  have  failed  to  discover  another  central  authority  for  us  in  this 
democratic  country  besides  the  Synod  on  strictly  Jewish  principles. 
I  can  think  of  no  other  remedy  to  meet  the  evil,  no  more  rational 
project  to  reach  the  "proper  end.  Every  honest  man  not  captivated 
by  self-delusion  must  be  willing  to  submit  his  opinions  to  many  of 


72  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

his  compeers.  Every  man  of  practical  reason  must  feel  satisfied 
that  the  decision  of  a  majority  is  a  safer  guide  than  that  of  one  in  all 
practical  matters.  Therefore,  I  am  in  favor  of  a  Synod,  although 
I  have  no  right  to  make  an  official  report,  and  can  offer  you  only  a 
notion  of  my  own. 

The  following  is  the  letter  of  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  K.  Gutheim  re- 
ferred to  above : 

NEW  ORLEANS,  March  25,  1881. 
THE  REV.  DR.  I.  M.  WISE, 

Chairman  of  Committee  on  Synod: 

Reverend  and  Dear  Sir: — Though  late,  I  trust  it  is  yet  time  to 
communicate  to  you  my  views  concerning  the  advisability  of  con- 
vening a  Synod.  I  did  not  think  the  matter  so  pressing,  as  the 
meeting  at  which  the  subject  is  to  be  considered  does  not  take  place 
until  July.  Hence  the  delay  in  my  answer. 

I  understand  under  "  Synod  "  an  assembly  of  theologians  to  delib- 
erate on  religious  matters  and  decide  on  questions  of  doctrine  and 
practice.  Such  an  assembly  must  be  invested  with  power*  to  enforce 
its  decrees.  Whence  shall  a  Jewish  Synod  derive  this  power  ? 

The  Synhedrin  employed  the  Din,  to  coerce  obedience.  The 
only  notable  Synod  held  in  the  Middle  Ages  was  that  of  DBru  "i,  when 
the  Din  was  also  used  to  insure  compliance  with  its  decrees.  In 
our  day  excommunication  has  lost  its  force.  It  is  neither  desired  by 
the  religious  authorities  to  impose  it,  nor  are  the  people  willing  to 
respect  it.  Under  these  circumstances  a  Synod  would  be  powerless 
to  command  compliance  with  its  rulings  and  orders. 

The  consequence  of  this  non-compliance  would  be  a  pronounced 
schism  in  Judaism.  Hitherto  in  spite  of  the  existing  different  shades 
of  opinion  and  variations '  of  practice,  a  schism  has  been  avoided. 
While  at  present  Judaism  presents  various  schools  of  so-called 
Orthodoxy  and  Reform,  ranged  under  one  banner,  there  would  be 
added  heretics  and  sects,  and  the  one  mm  be  split  into  many  nnm. 

Moreover,  the  difficulty  of  laying  down  precise  definitions  of  doc- 
trinal points  must  not  be  lightly  treated.  What  will  become  of  the 
diverging  views  entertained  and  expressed  by  prominent  rabbis  of 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  73 

the  reformed  school  concerning  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  Juda- 
ism, the  idea  of  God,  of  Revelation,  of  Immortality?  The  now 
serried  ranks  would  separate,  and,  so  far  from  effecting  uniformity, 
a  disintegrated  Judaism  would  be  the  result. 

For  these  and  many  other  weighty  reasons,  which  I  might  advance, 
I  hold  that  the  creation  of  a  Synod  is  impracticable,  inexpedient,  and 
hence  inadvisable. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  yours  respectfully, 

JAMES  K.  GUTHEIM. 

[A  paper  read  by  Isaac  M.  Wise  before  the  Rabbinical  Literary  Association,  Chicago, 
July,  1881.  From  The  American  Israelite,  October  21,  1881,  Vol.  28,  page  132. \ 


SAMUEL  HIRSCH,  1881. 

Dr.  I.  M.  Wise  publishes  now,  after  more  than  three  months,  his 
lecture  on  the  Synod,  which  was  delivered  in  the  Rabbinical  Literary 
Association.  But  he  does  not  inform  his  readers  that  he  concluded 
his  address  with  the  words,  that  in  the  name  of  the  Rabbinical  Asso- 
ciation a  resolution  favoring  the  Synod  should  be  offered  the  fol- 
lowing day  before  the  Council  of  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew 
Congregation.  It  was  this  concluding  passage  which  prompted  my 
violent  opposition.  Among  the  assembled  rabbis  were  very  few  who 
had  the  courage  to  oppose  Dr.  Wise  publicly.  Without  my  vehe- 
mence this  resolution  most  likely  would  have  passed.  I  think  that  in 
a  Synod  only  experts  should  be  entitled  to  a  seat  and  to  a  vote.  Why 
then  bind  the  minority  against  their  well-grounded  opinions  by  the 
arbitrary  vote  of  the  majority?  The  Rabbinical  Conferences  in 
Braunschweig  1844,  in  Frankfurt  1845,  in  Breslau  1846,  in  Phila- 
delphia 1869  never  dreamt  of  doing  violence  to  the  convictions  of  the 
minority.  Call  a  Synod !  The  sooner  the  better.  Let  it  dictate.  But 
what  I  request  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  Synod  is  this:  Talk  what 
you  please,  resolve  what  you  please,  only'  say  it  in  your  own  name, 
and  not  in  the  name  of  Judaism.  S. 

[Zeitgeist,  Nov.  10,  1881,  Vol.  II,  pp.  368-369.] 


74  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

K.  KOHLER,  1882. 

"  A  Synod  is  not  our  '  Popanz.'  Nb  majority  of  votes  can  foist 
upon  us  dogmas,  which  Judaism  as  a  religious  community  never 
accepted.  May  five  hundred  ever  so  solemnly  proclaim  their  belief 
in  the  authenticity  of  the  books  of  Moses,  my  No  has  to-day  more 
weight  than  their  Yes  by  a  majority  of  five  hundred  votes,  and  not 
I  have  to  fear  the  excommunication,  but  they  who  would  excommu- 
nicate. For  the  curse  of  excommunication  by  the  public  opinion  of 
all  thinking  men  will  fall  upon  their  heads.  What  could  a  Synod 
representing  American  Judaism  in  its  totality  resolve  or  effect? 
Could  it  again  enforce  the  generally  neglected  dietary  and  purity 
laws,  which  Mosaism  had  transferred  from  the  priesthood  to  the 
whole  people,  even  with  the  rabbinical  additions  to  the  same,  as  some 
short-sighted  Romanticists  demand  it?  Just  try  it,  to  put  the  old 
yoke  on  Jewry  of  to-day,  to  make  slaughter-  and  bath-houses  ad- 
juncts of  the  congregation,  to  make  policemen  of  the  rabbis  and  see 
whether  you  will  succeed.  Or,  do  they  really  and  in  all  seriousness 
believe  that  by  means  of  a  resolution  of  a  Synod  the  historical  Sab- 
bath can  be  restored  to  its  pristine  sacred  dignity,  that  banks,  manu- 
facturing establishments,  retail  stores  and  offices  will  be  closed  on  the 
Sabbath,  and  young  and  old  will  be  driven  into  the  synagogue? 
A  Synod  is  too  impotent  to  enforce  its  resolutions.  Only  on  the 
basis  of  radical  reform  can  a  Synod  have  an  object.  Such  a  Synod 
would  at  the  outset  have  to  make  the  following  declaration:  Old, 
Mosaic  Rabbinical  Judaism  of  Legalism,  finding  itself  in  a  state 
of  dissolution,  the  whole  ceremonial  system  being  bankrupt,  our 
whole  '  Weltanschauung '  being  incompatible  with  the  five  books  of 
Moses,  which  are  recited  every  Sabbath  as  the  word  of  God,  we  must 
renew,  strengthen  and  clarify  our  religious  life,  thought  and  feeling 
on  the  basis  of  Prophetical  Judaism,  a  Judaism  that  strives  after  the 
Messianic  goal.  Only  such  a  Synod  I  favored  a  year  ago' in  course 
of  conversation,  not,  however,  one,  in  which  ignorance  and  lack  of 
clearness  in  conjunction  with  a  majority  of  votes  would  form  the 
decisive  factors,  and  would  dominate.  But  the  people  must  first  be 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  75 

prepared  for  this  work  by  means  of  discussions  of  long  years. 
Competent  men  must  first  accomplish  the  fundamental  labors, 
before  such  a  Reform-Synod  could  be  called.  Only  no  sweetish 
sentimentalism,  where  holy  prophetical  earnestness  is  needed. 
Bread  is  wanted,  not  sugar,  wherewith  to  catch  simpletons.  A 
thousand  times  better  is  an  effervescent  servant  of  truth,  whom 
I  am  bound  to  respect,  even  though  I  cannot  agree  with  him, 
than  a  time-serving  hypocrite,  who  turns  whichever  way  the  wind 
blows.  I  prefer  even  the  impulsive  dare-devils  to  the  smart  calcu- 
lating wiseacres,  who  want  others  to  burn  their  fingers  and  pull  for 
them  the  chestnuts  out  of  the  fire.  In  a  word,  we  need  men  of  cour- 
age and  energy  for  serious  work,  and  not  for  the  sake  of  playing 
hide  and  seek.  Then  and  then  only,  it  will  be  time  to  think  of  a 
Synod."  S. 

[Zeitgeist,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  24,  January  19,  1882.] 


THE  JEWISH  SYNOD. 

(Paper  read  before  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  at  Buffalo, 
N.  Y,  July  4,  1900.) 

By  RABBI  H.  G.  ENELOW,  D.  D. 

"  Institutions,"  according  to  a  recent  American  writer,  "  are  the 
warp  and  a  good  part  of  the  woof  of  human  history;  events  have 
filled  out  the  design  and  formed  most  of  its  brilliant  patches  of 
color."  The  same  author  furthermore  defines  an  institution,  his- 
torically speaking,  as  "  a  usage,  a  habit  of  human  action,  made  up 
of  a  multitude  of  similar  acts  repeated  on  innumerable  occasions 
by  many  men  through  a  considerable  period  of  time."  :  The  insti- 
tution which  I  have  this  day  the  exceptional  privilege  of  presenting 
to  you,  certainly  comes  within  the  scope  of  this  definition.  No 
matter  what  our  individual  opinions  may  be  concerning  the  resto- 

1  Edward  P.  Cheyne,  Recent  Writing  on  English  History,  The  International 
Monthly,  I,  p.  400. 


76  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

ration  of  the  Jewish  Synod  in  this  country — a  plan  which,  as  you 
know,  has  had  its  champions — we  cannot  deny  the  fact  that  the 
threads  of  the  Synod  have  run  through  the  entire  historical  texture 
of  Israel.  These  threads  it  is  now  my  task  to  point  out  to  you — 
making  my  exhibition  as  brief  as  possible 2 — that  you  may  judge 
for  yourselves  as  to  whether  or  not  the  Synod  might,  historically 
speaking:,  be  styled  a  Jewish  institution. 

I. 

Synod  is  the  Greek  name  for  an  association  of  men  assembled  for 
common  deliberation;  specifically,  it  is  applied  to  ecclesiastical  de- 
liberative assemblies,  stated  or  special,  local  or  general.  The  Latins 
called  such  assemblies  Councils.3  The  first  association,  then,  which 
may  fairly  demand  our  attention  in  a  survey  of  the  Jewish  Synod, 
is  the  Council  of  Elders.  This  institution  cannot  be  accounted  in 
any  way  peculiar  to  Israel  alone.  On  the  contrary,  we  find  it  promi- 
nent in  the  annals  of  all  ancient  peoples,  no  matter  what  their  stage 
of  civilization.  The  Council  of  Elders,  it  may  be  said,  is  the  primal 
germ  of  government,  both  economic  and  political,  interior  and  ex- 
terior; it  is  the  alpha  in  the  vocabulary  of  sociality.  What  created 
it?  Necessity.  The  necessity,  namely,  which  frequently  arose 
among  several  tribes  dwelling  in  close  contiguity  of  taking  counsel 
together  on  subjects  of  common  concern,  particularly  in  seasons  of 
common  danger  or  distress.  At  such  deliberations  each  tribe  was 
represented  by  its  leading  men,  its  elders,  whose  prestige  was  sure 
to  capture  the  consent  of  the  masses.  "  And  out  of  such  Confer- 
ences/' as  Robertson  Smith  has  summed  it  up.  "  arose  the  senates 
of  the  elders  found  in  the  ancient  states  of  Semitic  and  Aryan 
antiquity  alike."' 

How,  then,  was  it  in  Jewish  antiquity?  There  is  no  telling  what 
the  exact  relations  were  among  the  several  tribes,  but  this  we  know 

3  The  exposition,  the  arguments,  and  the  authorities  are  reduced  to  a  mini- 
mum in  this  paper,  which  is  a  summary  of  a  larger  essay  on  the  same  subject 
by  the  present  writer. 

*  Cf.  Standard  Dictionary. 

4  Religion  of  the  Semites,  Rev.  ed.,  p.  33;  cf.  Herbert  Spencer,  Principles  of 
Sociology,  Vol.  I,  p.  520  ff. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  77 

full  well  that  their  medium  of  intercourse  and  association  on  occa- 
sions of  general  import  were  the  Elders  (Zeqenim).  Nay,  more ;  not 
alone  were  the  Elders  the  vicegerents  of  the  people,  but  they  were 
also  regarded  as  the  collective  substitute  of  the  people,  as  the  sum- 
mary of  the  latter,  as  it  were,  its  embodiment.  For  this  reason,  no 
doubt,  the  elders,  on  our  first  acquaintance  with  them,  aside  from 
serving  as  intermediaries  between  Moses  and  the  people,5  also  accom- 
pany the  prophet  in  his  interview  with  Pharaoh,  as  representatives 
of  their  tribes,  and  when  the  monarch  devises  punishment  for  the 
Israelites  because  of  their  delinquencies,  the  thrashing,  quite  natur- 
ally, is  administered  to  none  but  the  Elders.6  This  certainly  was 
rather  unenviable ;  but,  in  return,  the  zeqenim  did  duty  as  synonyms 
of  the  whole  nation  on  many  a  more  pleasant  and  flattering  occa- 
sion. All  these  events  I  cannot  recount  here,  but  a  few  instances 
must  suffice :  the  promise  of  the  Elders  to  abide  by  the  Divine  Coven- 
ant, for  instance,  is  as  good  as  the  promise  of  the  whole  people;7 
when  Jephthah  is  about  to  be  chosen  judge,  the  Elders  of  Gilead 
are  delegated  to  bring  him  home ; 8  the  introduction  of  royalty  is 
preceded  by  a  convention  of  the  Elders  at  Raniah  ; 9  when  David  is  in 
temporary  exile,  during  the  rebellion  of  Absalom,  the  appeal  for  his 
return  made  by  the  Elders  is  alluded  to  as  the  will  of  "  all  the  men 
of  Judah  " ; 10  at  the  dedication  of  the  Solomonic  temple,  the  Elders 
take  a  leading  part  in  the  festive  ceremonies ; n  when  King  Josiah 
contemplates  his  religious  reforms  and  the  introduction  ef  the  Book 
of  the  Covenant,  the  Elders  of  Judah  and  of  Jerusalem,  the  national 
representatives,  that  is  to  say,  and  the  local,  have  the  benefit  of  a 
preliminary  reading  and  the  privilege,  mayhap,  *of  approval ; 12  the 
revolution  in  the  days  of  Rehoboam  ensues  upon  the  king's  rejec- 

5  Ex.  V:6-2i. 

•/Wrf.,  III:i6ff,  VI 127. 

7  Ex.  IV :  29-30 ;  XIX :  7,  8 ;  Jos.  XXIII :  2 ;  XXIV :  I. 

8Ju.  XI:  5. 

8 1  Sam.  VIII :  4 ;  in  this  chapter  the  interchange  of  the  terms  "  the  elders  " 
(v.  4)  and  "the  people"  (vv.  7,  10,  19,  21)  and  the  "the  men  of  Israel"  (v. 
22)  is  to  be  noted. 

10  2  Sam.  XIX:  12,  15. 

11 1  Kings  VIII :  i  ff. 

"2  Kings  XXIII:  i. 


78  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

tion  of  the  reforms  suggested  by  the  people's  representatives  (char- 
acteristically styled  "  the  congregation  of  Israel "  and  "  the  peo- 
ple ")  ; "  in  the  reign  of  Ahab,  the  Elders,  on  a  noted  occasion,  sub- 
vert the  royal  policy  of  peaceful  submission  to  the  bullying  monarch 
of  Syria.14  And  thus  you  may  run  through  the  entire  domain  of 
biblical  literature:  from  entrance  to  exit  you  encounter  the  Elders, 
from  Moses  to  Ezra.16  The  time  when  they  began  to  organize  into 
close  local  and  national  senates 16  is,  of  course,  unknown,  even  as  the 
number  of  the  latter  is  indefinite."  But  it  is  quite  probable  that  out 
of  the  larger  number  of  Elders  a  narrower  circle  was  selected  to 
serve  both  as  Shophetim  and  as  Shoterim,  as  judiciary  and  execu- 
tive officials.18  This  much,  at  any  rate,  is  clear:  the  Elders  com- 
posed the  first  representative  organism  of  Israel — they  guided  and 
governed  the  community;  they  were  accredited  with  its  merits  and 
its  misdeeds ;  they  sought  atonement  for  it  by  offering  the  communal 
piacula,18  so  that  when  the  prophet  Ezekiel  wished  to  depict  the  gen- 
eral religious  decadence  of  his  contemporaries,  the  metaphor  he 
employed  was  the  degeneracy  of  the  Elders.20 

II. 

From  the  Elders  as  the  representative  body  of  the  people  emerges 
the  Great  Synod  (Keneseth  Haggedolah).  The  mention  of  this 
title,  no  doubt,  will  remind  you  of  the  great  storm  of  controversy 
which  raged  about  it  in  the  second  half  of  this  century;  no  doubt 
it  will  occur  to  you  that  Kuenen  has  written  a  long  and  learned 

13 1  Kings  XII. 
"Ibid.,  XX 17. 
15Ezr.  V:5,  9;  VI :  7,  14;  X:8. 

16  For  local  elders  cf.  Jos.  XX 14;  Jg.  VIII:  14;  Ruth  IV:  2;  i  Sam.  XVI: 
4;   i   Kings  XXI :  8,  etc.     In  the  Deuteronomic  legislation  the  reference  is 
usually  to  local  elders  (Dt.  XIX:  12;  XXI :  2-4,  6,  19  ff,  etc.). 

17  Seventy  is  the  proximate  number  frequently  occurring.     Cf.  Dt.  XXIV :  i ; 
Nu.  XI :  16 ;  Ju.  VI II :  14 ;  Ez.  VIII :  1 1. 

18  Dt.  18 ;  cf.  Schuerer,  Geschichte  d.  jiid.  Volkes,  3  ed.,  II,  p.  176. 

19  Ex.  XVIII:  12;  Lev.  IV:  13  ff;  Dt.  XXI:  4;  cf.  T.  B.  Snh.  I3b;  Robert- 
son Smith,  op.  cit.,  p.  417. 

20  Ez.  VIII:  ii. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  79 

essay  to  prove  that  the  Great  Synod,  to  use  a  homely  Hebrew  phrase, 
lo  haya  welo  nibhra,  never  existed;21  you  will  be  reminded,  also, 
of  the  rough  and  ready  dictum  with  which  Wellhausen  has  banished 
this  institution  from  the  world  of  reality:  "an  exegetical  mythus 
having  its  foundation  on  the  narrative  of  Nehemiah  VIII  :  10."  * 
Nor,  indeed,  are  these  two  scholars  alone  in  their  negation  of  the 
historicity  of  the  Great  Synod.  In  fact,  the  latter-day  critique  of 
this  institution  was  instigated  by  a  Jewish  savant,  Nahman  Kroch- 
mal.23  From  Krochmal,  who  opened  up  the  era  of  scepticism 
towards  the  Great  Synod,  to  this  day,  there  have  been  numerous 
students,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  have  more  or  less  disrupted 
its  traditional  ground-work,  until,  under  the  critical  hammers  of 
Kuenen  and  Wellhausen,  its  basal  stone  seemed  to  be  hopelessly 
splintered. 

Now,  I  am  both  too  regardful  of  your  patience  and  too  sensible 
of  the  inverse  limits  of  my  topic  and  my  time,  to  lead  you  at  present 
into  the  labyrinth  of  controversy  concerning  the  Great  Synod.  You 
will  certainly  deem  it  both  more  pleasing  and  proper  if  I  confine 
myself  here  solely  to  the  statement  of  my  view  of  the  subject,  leaving 
for  a  more  leisurely  occasion  its  detailed  defense. 

The  Great  Synod,  then,  to  my  judgment,  presents  the  second  stage 
in  the  evolution  of  the  Jewish  representative  organism.  Both  the 
time  and  the  causes  of  its  appearance  seem  to  me  very  clear,  and 
the  talmudic  reports  alluding  to  it,  though  at  times  tangled,  are  yet, 
on  the  whole,  quite  congruous.  When  was  the  Great  Synod  formed  ? 
In  the  days  of  the  Restoration  :  Ezra  laid  its  foundation,  and  Nehe- 
miah set  up  the  gates  of  it.  How  so?  The  relations  of  the  time 
and  the  records  of  tradition  warrant  this  assumption.  The  heroes 
of  the  Restoration,  you  will  readily  'grant,  were  possessed  by  a  two- 
fold ambition.  None  need  hypothesize  upon  the  exact  nature  of  the 
latter  ;  we  find  it  finely  described  in  the  royal  edict  with  which  Ezra 
was  equipped  :  "  And  thou,  Ezra,  after  the  wisdom  of  thy  God  that 
is  in  thine  hand,  (first)  appoint  magistrates  and  judges,  which  may 


de   mannen   der  groote  Synagoge,   German  translation   in   Gesam. 
Abhandlungen,  pp.  125-160. 

22  Enc.  Brit.,  Israel,  Vol.  XIII,  p.  419,  note  2. 

23  See  More  Nebokhe  Hazzeman,  chap.  XL 


8o  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

judge  all  the  people,  all  such  as  know  the  laws  of  thy  God,  and 
(secondly)  teach  ye  him  that  knoweth  them  not." '  Here  we  have 
the  twofold  program  of  the  Restoration :  educational  and  executive, 
the  setting  up  of  an  efficient  administrative  order,  and  the  intellect- 
ual improvement  of  the  people.  Without  the  latter,  moreover,  the 
former  could  be  of  no  avail,  seeing  that  the  Torah,  which  was  to 
regulate  the  new  life,  could  be  neither  observed  nor  enforced  unless 
it  were  commonly  understood.  What,  then,  was  Ezra's  course? 
Noting  the  stupendous  ignorance  prevalent  among  the  people,  he, 
at  the  outset,  let  go  of  all  administrative  ambitions  and  devoted 
himself  chiefly  to  the  pursuit  of  intellectual  rejuvenescence.  He 
made  himself  neither  prince  nor  priest,  posts  either  of  which  he 
might  easily  have  arrogated ;  *  but,  in  the  phraseology  of  tradition, 
he  became  a  new  Shaphan,  a  new  Moses  26 — he  became  a  Sopher, 
Scribe.  As  such  he  not  only  produced  copies  of  the  Torah — the 
new  constitution,  the  new  "  map  of  life  " — but  he  also  instructed 
the  people  in  it,  interpreted  it,  popularized  it.  Alone?  Certainly, 
not;  he  required  assistants,  apostles.  These  he  found  among  the 
contemporary  men  of  letters — the  school  represented  in  the  Bible 
by  the  Wisdom  literature — among  the  Hakhamim™  Quite  a  num- 
ber of  the  Sages,  no  doubt,  turned  Scribes,  and  thus  Ezra  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  group  of  men  pursuing  with  him  one  part  of  his  orig- 
inal program:  the  educational.  The  administrative  side  of  it,  be- 
yond a  doubt,  meantime  suffered  corresponding  neglect,  and  never 
did  it  achieve  any  success  until  Nehemiah,  the  man  of  action,  ap- 
peared on  the  scene.  This  happened  after  Ezra  had,  so  to  say,  for 
fifteen  years  (485-444.8.  C.)  conducted  his  preparatory  school. 
Then  commenced  the  organizing  activity,  practical  reform,  obedi- 
ence to  the  Torah.  The  alliance,  in  brief,  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah, 
the  intermarriage  of  theory  and  of  action,  engendered  the  Restora- 
tion. 

"  Then    they    that    feared    the    Lord,"    records    a    contemporary 

24  Ezr.  VII :  25. 

25  Cf.  Cant.  Rob.  V:4. 

26  Cf.  Siphre  to  Dt.,  Pisqua  48;  Qohel.  Rab.  1:8;  T.  B.  Snh.  2ib,  and  paral- 
lel passages. 

*  Cf.  Cheyne,  Jewish  Religious  Life  after  the  Exile,  p.  216  ff. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  81 

prophet,  "  spake  one  with  another :  and  the  Lord  hearkened,  and 
heard,  and  a  book  of  remembrance  was  written  before  Him,  for 
them  that  feared  the  Lord,  and  that  thought  upon  His  name." '  A 
general  betterment  of  conditions  was  manifest ;  in  lieu  of  the  laxity 
and  the  lethargy  which  the  prophets  of  the  preceding  age  had  to 
bewail,  great  vitality  now  was  regnant,  attempts  at  organization — 
union.  The  Sopherim  themselves,  no  doubt,  had  in  good  oriental 
fashion,  formed  a  council  of  their  own,  a  guild,  but  when  Nehemiah 
arrived  and  began  in  good  earnest  the  promulgation  of  reforms,  this 
is  what  occurred :  the  people  at  large  resolved  to  select  a  represen- 
tative body  of  men  to  bear  the  burden  and  the  business  of  the 
government,  seeing,  no  -doubt,  how  futile  the  endeavor  was  to  settle 
gravely  momentous  matters  at  the  open-air  mass  meetings  which 
Nehemiah  was  accustomed  to  convoke.29  And  this  delegated  body, 
you  can  imagine,  no  longer  could  consist  of  the  old-time  represen- 
tatives alone,  the  tribal  aristocrats,  the  Elders,  but  it  needs  must 
admit  a  new  element  that  both  deserved  and  demanded  representa- 
tion, a  new  factor  thenceforth  potent  in  the  policy  of  the  people, 
the  Sages,  the  Scribes.30  This  corporation,  personifying  the  result- 
ant of  the  people's  best  theoretical  and  practical  forces,  was  taxed 
with  promoting  the  future  of  the  Restoration:  and  this,  I  take  it, 
was  the  genesis  of  the  Great  Synod. 

Our  knowledge  of  the  spiritual  activity  of  the  Great  Synod  is  not 
mere  guesswork.  The  problem  relating  to  its  composition  and  its 
mode  of  operation  is  too  complex  and  irrelevant  to  our  present 
inquiry ; 31  its  activity  is  what  interests  us  here,  its  role  in  Jewish 
history.  And  this  we  find  summed  up  in  the  Mishnah.  The  object 
of  the  Keneseth  was  to  "  raise  up  many  disciples,"  to  "  make  a  fence 
round  the  law,"  and  to  establish  a  careful  judiciary  system.32  It 
would  be  interesting  to  know  what  part  the  Synod  played  in  the 
politics  of  the  nation,  but  thereof  hardly  any  records  have  been  pre- 

28  Mai.  Ill:  16;  cf.  Ezr.  IX 14,  X:3;  Cheyne,  op.  cit.,  p.  62  if. 

29  Neh.  X  :  28  ff. 

^Neh.  IX  138,  X:  i  ff;  cf.  T.  B.  Meg.  i7b;  T.  J.  Bcr.  II 14  (ed.  Krot.  4d)  ; 
Meg.  1:5  (Tod). 

31  For  a  good  summary  of  the  problem  first  mentioned,  see  Taylor,  Pirqe 
Aboth,  2  ed.,  p.  no  f. 

"Aboth  l:i. 


82  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

served.  This  much,  however,  is  certain,  that  spiritually  its  task  lay 
in  the  elucidation  and  the  transmission  of  the  Torah,  as  well  as  in 
the  adaptation  of  the  latter  to  the  new  environment.  Its  business 
was  so  to  interpret,  to  clarify,  to  expand  the  old  law  that  reply  might 
be  readily  found  in  it  to  the  queries  of  the  new  life — a  programme 
destined  to  remain  the  standard  of  all  subsequent  Jewish  Synods. 

Numerous  reforms  which  emanated  from  the  Great  Synod  go  in 
tradition  now  by  the  name  of  Ezra,  and  now  by  that  of  the  Elders, 
and  now  again  by  the  name  of  the  Scribes.  But  this  is,  no  doubt, 
a  simple  case  of  synecdoche:  Ezra,  as  the  founder  of  the  Synod, 
was  often  treated  as  its  eponym,  as  were  occasionally  the  Scribes 
also,  who  as  specialists  in  the  theory  undoubtedly  suggested  those 
innovations  which  the  whole  Synod  ratified,  and  which  its  lay  mem- 
bers, the  Elders,  eventually  enforced  in  practice.33  Aside  from  the 
purely  intellectual  reforms  for  which  the  Synod  became  responsible 
— such  as  certain  exegetical  and  textual  emendations  in  the  Law, 
the  introduction  of  the  style  of  the  sages  (Leshon  Hakhamim)  for 
use  in  the  popular  discourse,  and  of  the  new  script  (Kethabh  Ash- 
uri)54 — and  aside,  also,  from  its  reforms  in  the  administrative  and 
judicial  system,  it  took  an  important  part  in  the  formation  of  the 
new  liturgy.  Of  course,  I  need  not  pause  here  to  dwell  on  the  meta- 
morphosis of  the  liturgy  after  the  Restoration ;  to  remind  you  of 
the  fact  that  it  is  then  that  fixed  forms  of  prayer  were  adopted, 
regular  music  was  introduced  at  the  services,  and  the  Psalms  were 
largely  collected  to  serve  as  a  congregational  hymn-book ;  well  may 
I  withhold  my  little  candle  of  archaeologic  knowledge  from  where 
the  sun  of  erudition  shines.  I  wish  to  point  out,  however,  that  the 
Great  Synod,  no  doubt,  applied  itself  to  this  task  of  establishing  the 
liturgy.  Tradition  credits  it  distinctly  with  a  great  deal  of  such 
work,  as  the  authorship  of  the  Tephilah  and  similar  prayers  of  Sanc- 
tification  and  Separation  (Qedushoth  and  Habdaloth),  the  introduc- 
tion of  the  Hallel,  the  institution  of  the  Megillah  reading.88  All  this 

85  Weiss  separates  the  Sopherim  and  the  Keneseth  into  two  bodies,  which 
seems  unnecessary.  Cf.  Dor  Dor  Wedoreshow  (2  ed.)  I,  p.  65. 

84  Cf.  T.  B.  Snh.  2ib;  Zbah.  62a. 

85  Cf.  Siphre  to  Dt,  Pisqo  3431  T.  B.  Meg.  2a,  i;b;  Ber.  33a;  Yalqut,  Kings, 
§  192 ;  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  I,  p.  62. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  83 

work,  of  course,  cannot  have  been  accomplished  in  a  trice,  neither 
in  one  age  nor  in  two ;  but  it  was,  no  doubt,  the  product  of  the  sev- 
eral generations  comprised  in  the  history  of  the  Great  Synod. 

It  would  be  incongruous  with  the  whole  history  of  the  Great 
Synod,  if  its  termination  had  offered  no  ground  for  controversy. 
But  it  has.  The  statement  in  the  Mishnah  that  Simeon,  the  Just, 
was  one  of  the  last  members  of  the  Keneseth 30  has  naturally  caused 
speculation  as  to  the  identity  of  the  man  in  question.  Some  identify 
him  with  Simeon  I,3T  others  with  Simeon  II,38  and  still  others  with 
Simeon  III.39  It  is  safe  to  assume,  however,  that  the  Mishnah  has 
reference  to  Simeon  I,  in  whose  lifetime,  owing  to  the  detrimental 
invasion  of  Ptolemy  Lagos  (320  B.  C.),  the  Synod  may  have  fallen 
into  temporary  abeyance.  Who  knows  but  what  its  name  even, 
Keneseth  Haggedolah,  may  in  that  period  of  trouble  and  tragedy, 
have  been  lost  and  neglected?  As  the  people's  representative  insti- 
tution, however,  it  survived,  you  may  be  sure,  for  many  more  years, 
bearing  the  interchangeable  title  of  the  Council  of  Scribes,  or  of 
Sages,  or  again,  of  Elders.  In  fact,  its  traces  may  be  found  in  the 
period  bordering  on  the  Mishnah,  and  certainly  in  the  Maccabean 
era,40  in  which  latter  period  one  of  its  pre-eminent  products,  I  should 
say,  was  the  thirteenth  doxology  of  the  Tephilah,  in  which  side  by 
side  with  such  genuine  Maccabean  terms  as  Zaddiqim  and  Hasidim, 
allusion  is  found  to  the  Zeqenim  of  Israel  and  the  remnant  of  the 
Sopherim" 

The  two  salient  features  to  remember,  however,  are  these:  that 
the  Great  Synod  was  called  into  existence  by  an  obvious  necessity — 
the  need  of  a  central  organ  of  administration  at  a  most  critical  junc- 
ture of  Jewish  history — and  that  its  activity  chiefly  found  expres- 

mAbothfI:i,  2. 

"Weiss,  op.  cit.,  I,  p.  80;  Graetz,  Geschichte,  vol.  2,  II  (2  ed.),  P-  235. 

""Krochmal,  op.  cit.  (3  ed.),  P-  107. 

TOLoew,  Ges.  Schrifien,  I,  p.  411. 

40  Cf.  Krauss,  Jew.  Quar.  Rev.,  Vol.  X,  p.  364  ff.     I  Mac.  XIV:  23,  may 
have  specific 'reference  to  the  Great  Synod.     (Cf.  Jost,  Gesch.  d.  Judentums 
und  seiner  Sekten,  I,  p.  91,  note.} 

41  The  original   nucleus   of  this   prayer   may  be   older.     (Cf.   Dalman,   Die 
Worte  Jesu,  p.  299!)     Zunz's  date  appears  unwarranted  by  the  context  (Gott. 
Vortr.,  2  ed.,  p.  381).     See  Hamburger,  Real-Encyclop.,  Vol.  II,  p.  1096. 


84  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

sion  in  the  continuance  of  tradition,   in  the  interpretation  of  the 
Torah,  and  the  shaping  of  it  in  the  mold  of  the  new  circumstances. 

III. 

If  we  concurred  with  Graetz,  we  could  not  speak  of  the  Great 
Synod  as  a  phase  in  the  history  of  our  institution.  For,  according 
to  Graetz,  the  Keneseth  Haggedolah  was  only  an  ephemeral  episode 
in  the  life  of  Nehemiah,  the  large  popular  assembly,  namely,  which 
he  convoked;  while  all  the  social  and  religious  reforms  after  the 
Return  our  historian  attributes  not  to  the  Great  Synod,  but  to  an- 
other institution  which  he  believes  to  have  been  founded  immediately 
after  the  days  of  Nehemiah — the  Beth-Din-PIaggadol,  the  Great 
Court  of  Justice,  later  known  as  the  Synedrion.42  The  Beth-Din, 
however,  appears  to  me  to  have  been  organized  much  later;  the 
name  Synedrion,  moreover,  only  came  into  vogue  after  the  Great 
Synod  had  passed  through  an  era  during  which  its  membership  was 
reduced  to  seventy-two,  and  the  name  it  bore  was,  again,  Council 
of  Elders.43  How  the  Elder  came  anew  to  be  eponymous  of  the 
people's  representative  institution,  it  lies  not  within  the  scope  of 
this  paper  to  elucidate.  But  there  can  be  no  doubting  the  fact  that 
the  Elders,  on  the  one  hand,  are  frequently  identified  with  the  Great 
Synod,  and,  on  the  other,  they  become,  later  on,  the  constituent  mem- 
bers of  the  Synedrion,  while  again  and  again  they  are  alluded  to  as 
a  distinct  corporation.  In  other  words,  it  can  be  proven  that  be- 
tween the  Great  Synod  and  the  Synedrion  lies  the  history  of  another 
Council  of  Elders,  or,  as  it  was  styled  in  Greek,  the  Gerusia. 

The  Gerusia  was  not  a  foreign  importation,  despite  the  fact  that 
its  name  first  greets  us  in  Jewish  history  during  the  Greek  period. 
Only  the  name  was  a  new  adoption ;  the  institution  itself  was  indi- 
genous to  Judea.  No  wonder,  then,  that  Schuerer  observes  the 
radical  difference  between  the  Jewish  Gerusia,  which  was  essentially 
aristocratic,  and  all  similar  corporations  created  under  Hellenic  in- 
fluence, which  were  undeniably  democratic.44  The  reason  lies  on 

tt  Cf.  Geschichte,  2,  II,  p.  155  and  p.  178  ff. 
43  Kratiss,  ibid.,  p.  374  ff. 
"Cf.  op.  cit.,  p.  191. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  85 

the  surface :  the  Jewish  Gerusia  could  not  be  cut  after  the  Hellenic 
pattern,  because  it  antedated  the  Hellenic  invasion,  because  it  had 
behind  it  the  traditions  of  many  centuries,  because  its  structure  was 
grounded  in  the  history  of  the  people.  Nothing  but  a  new  name 
the  Grecian  conqueror  superimposed  upon  the  time-honored  council, 
and  under  it  we  find  it  first  mentioned  in  Josephus,  at  the  time  of 
Antiochus  the  Great  (223-187  B.  C.).46  The  Gerusia,  in  those  days, 
not  only  fulfilled  those  functions  in  the  social  and  religious  order 
which  from  of  yore  belonged  to  the  representative  institution,  but 
also  shared  with  the  high-priest  the  governmental  duties  which,  by 
reason  of  the  weighty  privileges  granted  to  the  Jews  by  the  Hellenic 
rulers,  must  have  been  both  multiplex  and  onerous. 

It  would  be  interesting  at  this  moment  to  speculate  somewhat 
more  minutely  on  the  probable  activity  of  the  Gerusia — particularly 
on  the  question  as  to  whether  this  council,  consisting  of  seventy-two 
Elders,  may  not  somehow  be  associated  with  the  Septuagint,46  which 
as  biblical  scholars  have  pointed  out,  "  was  written  down  to  satisfy 
the  religious  needs  of  the  Jews  by  a  translated  Torah,"  4r  but  to 
plunge  into  such  problems  would  mean,  for  the  success  of  my  paper,, 
to  heed  a  siren's  song.  I  must,  on  the  contrary,  hasten  to  remind 
you  that  it  is  in  the  days  of  Hyrcanus  II,  who  was  made  Ethnarch 
in  63  B.  C.,  that  we  find  the  council  first  bearing  the  future-fraught 
Greek  name  of  Synedrion,  and  endowed  with  judicatory  and  admin- 
istrative privileges  that  embraced  all  Judea.48 

The  central  Synedrion  of  Jerusalem  raised  to  their  apogee  the 
activity  and  the  influence  of  the  Scribes.  No  matter  who  the  pres- 
ident of  the  institution  was — whether  it  was  the  high-priest,  as  the 
latter-day  biblical  critics49  would  have  it,  or  the  foremost  member 
of  the  contemporary  rabbinical  schools,  as  the  Talmudic  tradition 
informs  us  "° — all  the  same,  it  was  the  experts  in  the  interpretation 

45  Annt.  XII,  in,  3. 

46  Cf.  Erdman,  History  of  Philosophy  (English  translation),  Vol.  I,  p.  213. 

47  Wellhausen,  in  Enc.  Brit.,  Vol.  XXI,  p.  667 ;  Robertson  Smith,  O.  T.  J.  C. 
(2  ed.),  p.  75f. 

48  Cf.  Ant.   XIV,  ix,  4 ;  Schuerer,  op.  cit.,  p.  193. 

49  Cf.  Kuonen,  Over  desamenstelling  van  het  Sanhedrin,  Germ.  Transl.,  loc. 
cit.,  pp.  49-81 ;  Schuerer,  ibid.,  II,  203  ff. 

-Mishnah,  Hag.  11:2. 


86  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

of  the  Torah,  the  bearers  of  the  treasures  of  tradition,  the  Scribes, 
that  played  the  leading  role  in  the  council.  The  activity  of  the 
Synedrion  at  Jerusalem,  in  effect,  continued  the  chain  of  ideals  first 
linked  by  the  Great  Synod ;  like  the  latter,  it  aimed  at  the  develop- 
ment, the  strengthening  of  the  inner  life  of  the  people.  This  it 
sought  to  accomplish  by  attending  to  the  particular  demands  of  the 
time,  by  the  expansion  of  the  Torah  through  diligent  and  ingenious 
interpretation,  so  that  it  might  respond  to  contemporary  needs. 
The  Synedrion  was  the  new  captain  to  help  the  people  circumnavi- 
gate life  according  to  the  chart  of  the  Torah.  Of  course,  specific- 
ally, it  was  also  a  tribunal  of  justice,  but  its  judicial  work  was  quite 
limited,  none  save  cases  of  supreme  import  being  submitted  to  it, 
and  that,  too,  only  as  a  resort  of  last  appeal.  Ordinarily,  the  local 
courts  "  settled  all  matters  of  judicature ;  while  to  the  Synedrion 
the  higher  spiritual  and  administrative  interests  of  the  people  were 
entrusted,  its  guidance  through  all  the  intricacies  of  secular  and 
religious  transformation. 

"  The  Synedrion  is  your  eyes,  O  Israel !  As  the  whole  body  fol- 
lows the  eyes,  thus  all  Israel  follows  the  Synedrion."  J  This  dic- 
tum applied  not  solely  to  Judea,  within  the  borders  of  which  the 
Synedrion  possessed  actual  jurisdiction,  sanctioned  by  the  govern- 
ment, but  to  all  countries  where  Jews  lived.  The  obedience  rendered 
to  the  central  institution  at  Jerusalem  was  universal  and  unequivocal, 
though  entirely  voluntary.  From  the  most  distant  parts  inquiries 
came  to  the  Synedrion  relating  to  religion  and  life,  to  the  law,  and 
its  pronouncements  were  regarded  as  authoritative.  Adherence  was 
unfailingly  acceded  to  the  Teqanoth,  the  Synedrial  ordinances,  which 
contained  decisions  on  the  variegated  topics  of  religious  interest. 
Whenever,  in  fact,  a  new  problem  arose,  no  matter  what  its  import, 
the  Synedrion  worked  out  its  solution,  and  forthwith  spread  the 
latter  broadcast  in  the  form  of  an  ordinance.63  These  Teqanoth — 
a  term,  by  the  way,  to  remember  for  future  reference — dealt  with 
the  most  multifarious  themes :  the  family  purity  of  the  priests,  the 

51  Cf.  Mat.  V :  22 ;  X :  17 ;  Mark  XIII :  9 ;  Mishn.  Sheb.  X :  14 ;  Sot.  1:3;  Snh. 
1:6;  XI:  4;  Josephus,  Annt.  IV,  viii,  14;  Bell  Jud.  II,  xx,  5;  T.  B.  Meg.,  262. 
83  Cf.  Cant.  Rab.  I,  63,  and  parallel  passages. 
83 Cf.  Acts  XXVIII:  21 ;  Tosephta,  Snh.  II;  T.  J.  Snh.  I:  I  (i8d). 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  87 

regulation  of  the  calendar,  the  improvement  of  the  judicial  routine, 
the  adjustment  of  marriage  settlements,  the  supervision  of  public 
education,  the  introduction  of  popular  feasts,  taxation,  and  such 
like.  In  brief,  what  Graetz  says  of  Simeon  ben  Shetah  and  Judah 
ben  Tabbai,  two  towering  synedriites,  was  more  or  less  characteristic 
of  all  their  fellows :  "  They  resuscitated  old  laws,  created  new  ones, 
and  sought  means  to  impress  them  upon  the  memory  and  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people."  M 

Purposely,  I  have  avoided  the  mention  of  the  composition  of  the 
Synedrion,  the  appointment  of  its  members,  the  Lishkath  Hagga- 
zith,  the  temple  hall  consecrated  to  its  sessions,  for  all  these  prob- 
lems are,  again,  for  the  present  occasion,  too  intricate  and  irrelevant. 
I  am  sketching  the  continuancy  of  the  representative  institution  of 
Israel;  to  draw  its  contour  is  my  aim  here,  not  the  details  of  each 
one  of  its  separate  phases.  At  the  fall  of  the  State  and  the  Temple, 
the  Synedrion,  of  course,  likewise  collapsed,  but  not  never  to  be 
rebuilt.  In  the  catalogue  of  the  merits  of  R.  Yohanan  ben  Zakkai 
it  should  be  accounted  one  of  the  chiefest  that  he  had  no  sooner 
founded  his  academy  at  Yamnia  than  he  succeeded,  likewise,  in 
resuscitating  the  Synedrion.  Great  vigor  of  personality  may  have 
been  needed  to  acquire  for  the  new  institution  all  the  reverence  for- 
merly coupled  with  the  hallowed  atmosphere  of  the  Lishkath  Hag- 
gazith;  popular  prejudice  may  have  required  palliation.  But  not 
for  naught  was  Yohanan  called  both  "  the  right  hand  pillar  and  the 
mighty  hammer  "  of  his  time ;  not  in  vain  was  he  addressed  as  "  the 
Light  of  Israel." '  His  Synedrion  gained  the  universal  adhesion  of 
the  people.  Nay,  the  total  transformation  through  which  Judaism 
was  passing  just  then  made  its  services  priceless.  In  this  period  of 
transition  it  played  a  part  parallel  to  that  of  the  Great  Synod  in  the 
early  days  of  the  Restoration.  R.  Yohanan  ben  Zakkai  was,  in 
reality,  a  new  Ezra.  His  Synedrion  not  only  abolished  anachronous 
rites,  but  its  weightiest  task  was  the  laying  of  an  utterly  new  basis 
for  the  future  life  of  the  people,  the  translation,  the  transfiguring  of 
the  old  doctrines ;  the  adaptation  of  the  Torah  to  totally  new,  unpre- 
cedented circumstances.  Its  activity  thenceforth  embraced  all 

"Op.  cit.,  vol.  3,  I  (4th  ed.),  pp.  137  ff. 
88  T.  B.  Ber.,  28b. 


88  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

branches,  you  may  be  sure,  of  the  inner  life  of  the  Jews :  the  appoint- 
ment of  New  Moon  and  feasts,  the  regulation  of  the  new  form  of 
worship,  the  final  fixing  of  the  liturgy,57  not  to  mention  minor  topics. 
In  fact,  there  were  nine  distinct  institutions,  the  introduction  of 
which  was  accredited  to  R.  Yohanan  ben  Zakkai  alone,  of  which  the 
most  significant,  mayhap,  was  his  methodical  insistence  upon  the 
principle :  Sheyeheyu  toqein  bekhol  maqom  sheyesh  bo  beth  din 67 — 
that  the  trumpet  of  religious  life  (to  turn  one  of  his  reforms  into 
a  trope)  should  be  blown  wheresoever  the  Synedrion  should  chance 
to  be ;  a  doctrine  which,  one  must  admit,  he  himself  carried  out  with- 
out compromise.68  This  certainly  was  an  auspicious  principle,  seeing 
that  a  period  of  peregrination  was  in  store  for  the  Synedrion.  For, 
after  the  death  of  Yohanan,  the  institution  began  to  move  about 
with  its  presidents,  holding  sessions  now  at  Usha,  whence  emanated 
the  noted  Teqanoth  Usha™  now  at  Beth  Shearim,  now  at  Sepphoris, 
and  now  at  Tiberias.  The  sunset  of  the  Synedrion  in  Palestine, 
however,  was,  no  doubt,  accelerated  by  two  circumstances :  the  mul- 
tiplication, on  the  one  hand,  of  talmudic  schools  and  ordained  schol- 
ars throughout  the  country,  which  was  bound,  in  the  long  run,  to 
counteract  the  centripetal  tendency ;  and  on  the  other,  the  collection 
of  the  Mishnah  by  Judah  I,  which  by  giving  to  the  people  an  authori- 
tative compendium  of  the  interpretations  of  the  Torah,  removed,  to 
a  great  extent,  the  necessity  of  turning  to  the  Synedrion  for  the 
solution  of  religious  difficulties,  and  thus  caused  detachment  from  it. 
The  Synedrion  can  not  be  dismissed,  however,  without  a  brief  allu- 
sion, at  least,  to  its  offspring  in  Babylonia.  While  the  central  council 
was  on  the  decline  in  Palestine,  and  the  splendor  of  the  Babylonian 
academies  was  constantly  growing,  the  following  opinion  gradually 
began  to  prevail:  Sanhedrin  nohegeth  baarezn-bhehuz  la-arez™  the 
Synedrion  is  legitimate  both  in,  and  beyond,  Palestine.  While  such 

06  Cf.  T.  B.  Snh.,  iia. 
"Mish,  R-Hash.,  IV:  i. 

58  Gemara,  ibid.,  2pb.     In  later  times  the  Synod  again  held  its  sessions  at 
Yamnia,  and  we  have  relics  of  its  activity,  relating  to  the  liturgy  and  the 
canon,  in  Mishna,  Yadayim,  111:5,  T.  B.  Berakh,  28b,  f ,  Taanith,  3ia. 

59  Cf.  T.  B.  Kethub.  4Qf,  M.  Qat.  i;a,  Sab.  isb. 
00  T.  B.  Makkoth,  Ja. ;  cf.  Git.  6a,  B.  Qama  8oa. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  89 

a  maxim  was  altogether  out  of  harmony  with  the  predelections  of 
the  Palestinian  Synedrion,  yet  had  the  latter  no  sooner  commenced 
to  abey,  than  a  Synod  was  in  full  swing  in  Babylon.  Its  groundwork 
was  the  academies  at  Sura  and  at  Pumbeditha.  These  latter,  from 
their  very  inception,  had  made  a  practice  of  setting  aside  two  months 
annually  as  Yarhe  Kallah G1 — months,  namely,  during  which  scholars 
from  far  and  wide  pilgrimed  to  the  seats  of  the  academies  to  enlist 
in  the  "  tournaments  of  the  Torah,"  as  Tanhuma  puts  it ; 62  for  in- 
struction, that  is,  mutual  assistance,  and  common  deliberation.  In 
the  course  of  time,  these  assemblages  forfeited  more  and  more  their 
instructional  character,  and  assumed  the  aspect  of  administrative 
and  legislative  Synods — a  circumstance  brought  about  largely  both 
•by  the  endless  multitude  of  religious  inquiries,  which  began  to  reach 
the  academies  from  all  parts  of  the  Diaspora,  and  by  the  ever-grow- 
ing facilities  which,  with  the  completion  of  the  Talmud,  young 
students  had  for  self-instruction.  The  assemblages,  in  point  of  pure 
education,  thus  turned  into  mere  examining  universities,  so  to  speak, 
while  their  main  energy  was  dedicated  to  the  people's  larger  issues, 
both  religious  and  secular.63  These  semi-annual  Synods  continued, 
with  mayhap  slight  interruptions,  throughout  the  history  of  the 
Babylonian  academies,  a  period  approximating  seven  centuries,  their 
duties  being  in  the  main:  the  preservation,  firstly,  of  talmudic 
scholarship,  and  the  constant  recruiting,  through  examinations,  of 
synedrial  candidates ;  secondly,  the  maintenance  of  a  steady  corre- 
spondence with  the  Jews  of  the  Diaspora,  who  were  accustomed  to 
turn  with  their,  difficulties  to  the  new  Synedrion ;  and,  thirdly,  the 
renderipg  of  legal  decisions  necessary  even  after  the  conclusion  of 
the  Talmud,  since  in  the  latter  such  could  not  be  found,  being,  as  it 
is,  a  compilation  of  legal  discussions  rather  than  a  compendium  of 

61  See  instances  and  discussion  in   Kohut,  Aruch  Completum,  Vol.   IV,  p. 
227  f. 

62  Cf.  the  old  Tanhuma,  Noah,  3;  cited  in  Buber,  Midrash  Tanhuma,  p.  15: 
The  "  destruction  of  Jerusalem  "  and  the  "  exile  "  alluded  to  in  the  passage 
quite  likely  are  Midrashic  expressions  for  the  decay  of  the  Palestinian  Syne- 
drion and  the  consequent  emigration  of  the   scholars.     It  is  an   interesting 
contemporary  document. 

83  Cf.  Graetz,  op.  ciL,  IV,  chap.  2. 


90  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

laws.04  In  matters  of  minor  import,  the  Synods  of  Snra  and  Pum- 
beditha  acted  as  two  independent  bodies ;  but  when  questions  of 
exceptional  gravity  arose,  they  combined  into  one  Synedrion,  the 
enactments  of  which  conveyed  incontrovertible  authority.  In  this 
manner  the  Babylonian  Synods  continued  the  traditions  of  the  Jew- 
ish representative  body :  the  transmission  of  the  Torah,  and  its  adap- 
tation to,  and  interpretation  for,  the  new  conditions  of  life. 

IV. 

The  conditions  of  life  in  Europe,  where  the  Jewish  communities 
grew  ever  more  appreciable,  of  course,  tended  to  generate  many  a 
religious  problem.  As  long  as  the  Synedrion  existed  in  Babylon, 
it  is  thither  that  they  were  sent  for  solution.  But  when  that  foun- 
tain of  authority  was  dried  up,  it  became  incumbent  upon  the  Euro- 
pean Jews  to  resolve  their  own  perplexities.  Very  soon,  then,  you 
see  the  opening  of  the  era  of  Synods  in  Europe;  particularly  in 
those  countries  where  the  Jews  excelled  in  point  of  population  and 
of  scholarship.  The  Teqanoth™  which  formerly  were  imported  from 
Asia,  you  now  find  shaped  in  Germany,  and  in  France,  and  in  those 
other  countries  where  environment  necessitated  a  modification  of  the 
ancient  theory.  I  cannot  hope  to  enumerate  here  all  the  Synods  of 
which  we  have  distinct  knowledge,  and  shall,  therefore,  content  my- 
self with  merely  indicating  the  causes  which  led  up  to  them.  Before 
doing  this,  however,  I  must  remind  you  that  the  first  widely  accepted 
Teqanoth  which  emanated  from  Germany,  bore  the  signature  not  of 
a  Synod,  but  of  an  individual :  the  Ordinances  of  R.  Gershom,  who 
lived  while  the  light  of  Sura  was  flaring  its  last  (960-1028  A.  C.).M 
Everybody  knows  Gershom's  three  principal  institutions :  the  prohi- 
bition of  polygamy,  the  necessity  of  the  wife's  consent  for  the  validity 
of  a  divorce,  and  the  involability  of  letter  secrecy;  for  the  author- 

64  Cf.  Weiss,  op.  cit.,  IV,  chap.  2. 

68  On  the  nature  of  the  medieval  Teqanoth,  cf.  Abrahams  Jewish  Life  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  pp.  58-61. 

^Jost  places  R.  Gershom,  also,  at  the  head  of  a  Synod  convened  by  him, 
and  cites  in  support  of  his  statement  Meir  ben  Barukh  of  Rothenburg,  Re- 
sponsa,  No.  1019,  which,  unfortunately,  it  is  impossible  for  me  to  verify.  (Cf. 
Gesch.  d.  Judent.  u.  s.  Sekten,  II,  p.  389.) 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  91 

ship  of  which  he  was  fondly  surnamed  "  The  Light  of  the  Exile." 
It  was,  however,  about  a  hundred  years  after  this  rabbi  of  Mayence 
produced  his  Teqanoth,  that  regularly  constituted  Synods  began  to 
appear  both  in  France  and  in  Germany.  By  that  time,  not  only  was 
there  a  sufficiently  large  number  of  prominent  Jews  in  these  coun- 
tries to  band  together  for  deliberation  on  matters  of  religious  mo- 
ment, but,  what  is  more  certain  and  noteworthy,  such  deliberative 
assemblies  became  exceedingly  importunate. 

The  entire  series  of  Synods  which  convened  between  the  twelfth 
and  the  seventeenth  centuries,  and  which,  "for  convenience  sake,  I 
shall  style  the  Medieval  Synods,  were  called  into  existence  by  the 
following  four  causes : 

1.  The  religious  conditions  of  the  time.     What  had  been  the  chief 
task  of  the  Great  Synod  and  of  the  Synedria?     To  interpret  and 
adapt  the  Law  to  new  conditions  of  life.     And  now,  too,  the  Law, 
"both  the  Torah  and  the  Talmud,  required  modifications  in  order  to 
respond  to  the  new  circumstances.     A  radical  difference  there  was 
between  the  environment  in  which  the  Talmud  had  been  produced 
and  the  Christian  countries  in  which  the  Jews  now  lived.     Inter- 
pretation alone  of  the  traditional  literature  sufficed  no  longer ;  actual 
augmentation  was  required — the  era  was  come,  not  of  the  Parshan, 
but  the  Tosaphist,  not  of  Rashi,  but  Rabbenu  Tarn.     Such  confu- 
sion and  heterogeneity,  in  fact,  had  crept  into  the  religious  practice, 
that,  as  a  means  of  averting  anarchy  and  introducing  clarity  and 
harmoniousness,  the  Synod  suggested  itself  most  forcibly. 

2.  The  judicial  position  of  the  European  Jews  demanded  a  Synod. 
In  the  middle  age,  you  remember,  the  Jews  were  treated  as  aliens 
by  the  several  nations,  and  were  left  to  themselves  in  their  inner 
administration  and  judicature ;  they  had  their  own  courts  of  justice 
and  executive  boards.     For  the  efficient  exercise  of  such  judicatory 
and  administrative  functions,  however,  the  need  was  strongly  felt 
of  uniformity  of  rules  and  regulations.     And  this  could  be  best 
achieved  by  synodal  assemblies. 

3.  Another  factor  in  the  creation  of  the  Synods  was  the  manifest 
need  of  elevating  the  manners  and  the  morals  of  the  people.     The 
Crusades,  the  persecutions,  and  the  consequent  instability  of  for- 
tunes had  directly  and  indirectly  caused  moral  degeneracy  among 


$2  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

the  Jews.  Luxury,  loose  conduct,  illegitimate  trades,  lack  of  deco- 
rum, were  rampant,  all  of  which,  it  was  felt,  could  be  counteracted 
more  effectively  by  a  Synod  than  by  the  rabbis  individually.67 

4.  The  numerous  persecutions  of  the  later  middle  age,  in  fine, 
called  forth  many  temporary  Synods,  at  which  methods  were  de- 
vised for  averting  the  common  danger.  As  a  rule,  such  Synods 
levied  a  tax  on  the  communities  for  the  purpose  of  bribing  the  per- 
secutors, though  they  made  themselves  responsible  for  many  another 
Teqanah  calculated  to  diminish  prejudice  and  to  stem  the  tide  of 
trouble. 

Having  thus  suggested  the  causes  of  the  several  Synods,  I  rely 
on  your  indulgence  if,  for  the  sake  of  economy,  I  abstain  from  a 
detailed  account  of  the  several  assemblies.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that 
their  success,  on  the  whole,  was  quite  marvelous ;  that  in  matters 
of  uniformity  of  jurisdiction,  of  religious  organization,  and  of  the 
moral  uplifting  of  the  Jewries  their  efficacy  was  well-nigh  bound- 
less. One  method  solely  they  had  of  enforcing  their  enactments — 
the  threat  of  excommunication ;  but  that  was  quite  enough.  Resist- 
ance to  the  Teqanoth  of  a  Synod  was  practically  unknown  within 
the  purlieus  of  its  authority — within  the  districts,  that  is,  from  which 
delegates  were  sent  to  its  assemblies  and  which,  again,  were  not 
prevented  by  their  political  position  from  joining  it.  For,  as  you 
know,  no  Synod  in  those  days  could  possibly  assume  an  international 
character,  for  the  reason,  if  for  none  other,  that  the  Jews,  regarded 
as  chattels  by  their  several  princes,  were  liable  to  the  diversity  of 
temperament  and  treatment  of  the  latter.  Synods  were,  therefore, 
local,  provincial,  national,  as,  e.  g.,  the  Synod  of  Spanish  Jews, 
which  met,  presumably,  at  Barcelona,  under  the  presidency  of  R. 
Nis'sim  b.  Reuben,  in  the  years  1354-56 ; C8  the  French  assemblies 
of  Rheims  and  Troyes  in  the  twelfth  century ;  the  Synods  of  Shu  in 
(Speyer,  Worms,  Mayence)  in  the  year  I223,69  and  again  in  1381  ;70 

67  Cf.  Giiclemann,  Gesch.  d.  Ersiehungswesens,  Vol.  I,  p.  255  ff. 

68  The  document  regarding  it  was  published  in  He-Haluz,  I,  1852,  p.  20  ft. 
Cf.  Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judcntutns  und  s.  Sekten,  III,  p.  90  ff. 

69  Cf.  Graetz,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  VIII  (3  ed),  p.  102. 

70  Cf.  Moses  Menz,  Responsa,  No.  10. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  93 

the  Synod  at  Erfurt,  about  the  year  1400;"  at  Nuremberg,  about 
1440,"  and  such  like — never  were  they  international.  Nor  was 
obedience  expected  without  representation,  and  the  only  instance 
known  to  me  in  which  the  enforcement  of  the  contrary  principle  was 
attempted — by  the  Synod  of  Bingen,  about  the  year  1455,™  caused 
unmistakable  resentment.  Frequently,  however,  the  assembled  dele- 
gates extended  an  invitation  to  all  rabbis  and  representative  laymen 
not  present  at  the  Synod,  to  become  signatories  to  the  Teqanoth 
adopted,  in  order  to  secure  for  them  the  widest  possible  sphere  of 
adherence,  as  was,  e.  g.,  done  at  the  memorable  Synod  at  Frankf  ort- 
on-the-Main  in  the  year  i6i3.74  Certainly,  many  an  enactment  thus 
found  currency  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  particular  Synod  respon- 
sible for  it,  not  to  mention  the  fact  that  often  Teqanoth  were  reen- 
acted  by  later  assemblies,  and  thus  either  resuscitated  or  reinvigo- 
rated.  The  synodal  assemblies  continued  throughout  France,  Ger- 
many, and  Italy  from  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century — when 
R.  Tarn  may  have  started  the  movement — till  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury, when  the  Synod  of  Frankfort,  which  I  have  just  mentioned, 
and  which  was  attended  by  the  leading  men  from  all  Germany,  in- 
volved the  Jews  of  the  country  in  a  preposterous  trial  for  secret 
conspiracy.  The  utility  of  the  Synods  was  as  vast  as  their  author- 
ity ;  they  became  "  the  Shepherds  of  Israel."  Many  a  communal  in- 
stitution owed  its  origin  to  them,  many  a  charitable  organization, 
a  hospital,  a  school;  not  to  mention  their  merits  in  elevating  the 
ethical  status  of  the  Jews  and  in  averting  from  them,  through  circum- 
spectness  and  corporate  endeavor,  numerous  dangers,  in  a  period 
when,  Heaven  knows,  there  was  lack  of  neither  danger  nor  distress. 
Few  of  us,  indeed,  may  know,  what  Dr.  Gudemanri  has  pointed  out, 
that  the  entire  modern  communal  life  of  the  Jews  in  Germany  and 
kindred  countries,  in  so  far  as  it  is  of  indigenous  development,  in 
reality,  was  first  given  shape  and  expression  at  the  medieval  Synods." 

71  Cf.  Isserlein,  Terumath  Haddeshen,  No.  24. 

72  Cf.  Jacob  Weil,  Responsa,  No.  101. 

78  Cf.  Isserlein,  ibid.,  No.  252  f;  Menz.,  ibid.,  No.  63,  1-5;  Graetz,  he.  cit.,  p. 
211  ff,  427  ff ;  Giidemann,  Gesch.  des  Erziehungswesens,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  38  f. 

74  Cf.  Horovitz,  Die  Frankfurter  Rabbiner-versammlung  v.  Jahre  1613,  p.  25. 

75  Cf.  loc.  cit.,  p.  256  ff ;  Abrahams,  he.  cit.,  p.  58. 


94  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

V. 

Were  not  economy  uppermost  in  my  mind  at  present,  I  might 
dwell  at  length  on  a  certain  Synod  of  world-wide  import  for  the 
conception  of  which  the  medieval  persecutions  and  the  desire  to 
unify  Israel  were  alike  responsible.  But  as  the  importance  of  the 
Synod  in  question  never  really  passed  the  borders  of  imagination, 
it  will  suffice  here  just  to  make  mention  of  it  and  dismiss  it  as  one 
of  the  many  dreams  dreamt  by  the  sons  of  Israel.  I  am  speaking 
of  the  Synedrion  which  Jacob  Berab  (1464-1541)  tried  to  re-estab- 
lish in  all  its  pristine  glory  in  Palestine.  Berab's  underlying  idea 
was  thus  to  create  a  highplace  for  the  unification  of  Israel,  which — 
as  his  most  curious  blending  of  rabbinic  erudition  and  mystical  dream- 
iness had  led  him  to  believe — needs  must  precede  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah.  Learned,  rich,  and  influential,  he  had  gone  as  far  as  ob- 
taining the  old-time  Ordination — Semikha — from  his  fellow-rabbis 
at  Safed,  and  thus  was  in  position,  in  accord  with  talmudic  teaching, 
to  ordain  others.  He  might  even  have  arrived  at  a  realization  of  his 
dream,  were  it  not  for  the  bitterest  opposition  which  his  plan  evoked 
from  R.  Levi  ben  Habib,  the  chief-rabbi  of  Jerusalem.  The  con- 
troversy with  the  latter  nipped  the  synedrial  flower  of  Berab's  imagi- 
nation in  the  bud,  despite  his  managing  meanwhile  to  confer  the 
Ordination  on  four  of  his  colleagues  and  disciples.  Among  these 
was  Joseph  Karo,  another  mixture  of  talmudism  and  mysticism, 
who  observing  the  failure  of  his  master  to  create  an  actual  Synedrion 
for  the  unification  of  Israel,  attempted  to  achieve  the  same  result  in 
another  manner,  and  thus  produced  the  Shulhan  Arukh — a  Written 
Synedrion. 

VI. 

At  no  time,  however,  has  Israel  consisted  entirely  of  dreamers. 
The  charm  of  Jewish  history  lies  in  the  contiguity  it  presents  of 
dreamland  and  reality,  in  the  welding  of  Dichtung  and  Wahrheit. 
While  Berab  was  laying  the  groundwork  of  a  universal  messianic 
Synedrion  in  Palestine,  the  more  sober-minded  and  prosaic  Jews  of 
Poland  were  preparing  to  establish  a  Synod  for  more  practical, 
though  more  provincial,  wants ;  a  Synod,  however,  destined  to  be- 
come the  most  notable  post-talmudic  institution  of  its  kind.  The 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  95 

Synod  of  the  Four  Provinces — Wa'ad  de-Arba  Arazoth — has  left  a 
deep  impression  in  Jewish  history,  despite  the  fact  that  most  of  its 
Minutes  have  been  either  lost  or  destroyed,  and  the  problems  relat- 
ing to  it  are  only  now  in  the  course  of  solution.  This  Synod  is  a 
polyonymous  institution ;  you  find  it  under  many  aliases:  now  it 
is  the  Synod  of  the  Four  Provinces,  now  of  Five,  and  now  of  Three. 
It  is,  therefore,  essential  to  remember  that  all  this  signifies  a  mere 
variation  of  names,  the  provinces  meant  always  including  Little 
Poland,  with  Cracow  as  capital  city ;  Great  Poland,  with  Posen ; 
Russia,  or  Podolia,  with  Lemberg ;  Volynia,  or  the  Ukraine,  with 
Vladimir,  and  Lithuania,  with  Brest — only  that  Great  Poland  and 
Little  Poland  ofttimes  were  included  under  the  name  of  Poland, 
while  Podolia  and  Volynia  were  designated  as  Russia,  Lithuania 
always  being  treated  as  an  independent  Grand  Principality ;  as  a 
rule,  however,  a  fourfold  division  prevailed,  Great  Poland  and  Little 
Poland  being  separated,  whence  the  common  name  of  the  Synod : 
Wa'ad  de-Arba  Arazoth.™ 

What  caused  the  inauguration  of  the  Polish  Synods  ?  Again,  the 
peculiar  relations  of  life.  The  Synods  were  the  direct  outcome  of 
the  position  of  the  Jews  among  their  neighbors,  or,  more  specific- 
ally, both  of  the  privileges  they  obtained  from  the  Polish  Kings, 
and  of  the  acute  social  antagonisms  dominant  in  Poland.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  Jews  possessed,  by  royal  concession,  the  right  of  their 
own  jurisdiction  in  civil  entanglements ;  on  the  other,  the  peculiari- 
ties of  the  gentry  had  brought  the  judicial  system  of  Poland  to  such 
a  pass,  that  almost  every  portion  of  the  population — every  caste 
and  sect — came  to  depend  upon  its  own  governing  and  judiciary 
organization.  The  autonomy  of  the  Jews  was  thus  quite  a  neces- 
sity ;  a  fragment  of  the  larger  life  of  Poland.  Add  to  this  the  fact 
that  both  Poland  and  Lithuania  adopted  the  system  of  treating  the 
Jews  as  a  unit  of  taxation,  the  allotment  of  which  required  the 
services  of  a  central  body;  add,  furthermore,  the  circumstance  that 
where  courts  of  justice  existed,  superior  courts  of  appeal  were  requi- 
site, and  that  frequently  conflicts  occurred  of  a  nature  that  disal- 

79  Cf.  Dembitzer,  Miktebhe  Biqqoreth,  p.  pf;  Dubnow,  Yevreyskaya  Istoriya, 
II,  p.  319. 


96  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

lowed  of  settlement  by  a  local  tribunal — and  the  need  of  a  central 
organization  will  grow  quite  obvious.77 

The  Synod  of  the  Four  Provinces  did  not  monopolize  the  super- 
vision over  the  affairs  of  its  constituency.  The  work  was  rather 
superintended  by  a  number  of  concentric  organizations:  first,  there 
were  the  local  Oahals — Congregations — entirely  autonomic  within 
their  sphere ;  then  came  the  district  assemblies,  then  the  provincial 
assemblies,  and,  at  length,  the  General  Synod.  Lithuania,  in  par- 
ticular, had  an  altogether  independent  Synod  of  her  own,  analogous 
in  activity  and  composition  to  the  Polish  council,  and  consisting  of 
five  so-called  "  Synagogues."  All  the  affairs  of  the  Lithuanian  Jews 
stood  beneath  its  surveillance,  and  only  in  instances  of  particular 
moment  it  joined  forces  with  the  General  Synod,  either  voluntarily 
in  matters  of  exceptional  interest,  or  in  events  of  such  royal  legis- 
lation as  affected  the  Jews  of  the  entire  kingdom.7-8 

Nothing  would  afford  me  greater  pleasure  than  to  detail  here  the 
multifarious  activity  of  the  Synods  of  Poland  and  Lithuania.  But 
this  is  quite  impossible,  seeing  that  I  should  then  be  constrained 
to  narrate  the  story  of  a  highly  energetic  institution  which  was, 
with  slight  interruption,  active  for  about  two  centuries.  The  Polish 
Synod,  it  may  be  noted  briefly,  was  founded  some  time  within  the 
reign  of  Sigismund  I  (1506- 1548),"  soon  after  the  immigration  of 
Jacob  Pollack,  while  Lithuania  established  hers  some  time  toward 
the  close  of  the  same  century,  after  the  Lublin  Union  (1569).  The 
General  Synod  at  first  met  at  desultory  places,  until  it  resolved  to 
hold  periodic  sessions  during  the  fair  at  Lublin,  and  later,  also  dur- 
ing the  fair  at  Jaroslaw.  At  these  two  places,  then,  the  Synod  met 
at  semi-annual  intervals,  with  slight  interruptions,  as  I  have  said, 
for  about  two  hundred  years.  Its  decay  began  in  the  earlier  part 

77  Cf.  Dubnow,  ibid.,  p.  305  ff. 

78  The  entire  subject  is  now  admirably  dealt  with  by  Dr.  Harkavy  and  Rab- 
binowitz  in  the  latter's  Hebrew  translation  of  Graetz's  History,  Vols.  VII 
and  VIII.     The  volumes  reached  the  writer  too  late  for  utilization  in  the 
present  paper. 

79  A  document  is  extant  dating  from  the  year  1533,  in  which  King  Sigis- 
mund I  enjoins  upon  his  subjects  obedience  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court 
of  "Jewish  Doctors"  that  was  held  in  Lublin  (see  Bershadski,  Russko-Yev- 
reyski  Arkhiv,  Vol.  I,  p.  ip2f ) .    Cf.  Dembitzer,  he.  cit.,  p.  6f,  ipf. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  9? 

of  the  eighteenth  century,  when  the  Jaroslaw  sessions  were  the 
first  to  cease,  when  the  Lithuanian  Synod  consolidated  with  the 
Polish,  when  gradually  tri-ennial  meetings  were  substituted  for  the 
annual,  until,  at  length,  in  the  year  1764,  the  Diet  of  Warsaw 
ordered  its  total  abrogation,  after  having  done  away  with  the  lump 
taxation  of  the  Jews. 

The  Polish  Wa'ad  was  not  alone  an  administrative  organization, 
or  tribunal  of  justice,  or  revenue  department  for  the  King:  it  was, 
in  addition,  the  cultural  centre  of  the  Polish  Jewries,  the  Mecca  of 
the  intelligence  and  the  scholarship  of  the  land.  What  time  could 
be  spared  from  the  making  of  all  possible  Teqanoth — enactments 
stretching  over  the  highways  and  by-ways  of  life — was  zealously 
devoted  to  the  general  improvement  of  mind  and  soul.  The  Synod 
was  truly  an  assembly  of  the  wise:  if  you  were  a  learned  man  and 
parent  of  some  new  idea,  it  was  thither  that  you  pilgrimed  with 
your  intellectual  offspring,  where  you  knew  you  could  make  show 
of  it  to  experts;  if  you  hit  upon  some  new  trick  of  exegesis,  con- 
cocted an  ingenious  pilpul,  you  knew  where  your  inventiveness  had 
the  best  chance  of  recognition ;  if  you  were  the  author  of  a  new 
work,  a  new  collection  of  Responsa,  nay,  a  new  volume  of  Hiddu- 
shim  (Novellae) — than  which,  to  be  sure,  as  a  Polish  rabbi  you 
could  produce  nothing  nobler — then,  indeed,  you  could  find  no  bet- 
ter distributing  centre  than  the  Synod.  Nor,  I  assure  you,  was 
there  any  lack  of  argumentative  exhibitions  at  the  assemblies,  where 
many  a  talmudic  tournament  occurred,  many  a  spear  of  specula- 
tion and  lance  of  learning  were  broken,  and  where,  if  you  were  a 
young  rabbi,  you  had  the  opportunity  of  joining  the  jousters  and 
displaying  your  dexterity  in  discussion,  which  chance,  if  it  proved 
to  your  credit,  often  procured  you,  by  way  of  guerdon,  a  call  from 
a  congregation,  unless,  indeed,  your  rich  merchant  of  a  father-in- 
law  bought  the  office  for  you  at  the  fair,  as  he  was  quite  apt  to  do. 

VII. 

While  I  sincerely  regret  my  inability  to  dwell  more  at  length  on 
the  Polish  Synods,  I  shall,  without  the  least  compunction,  allot  the 
briefest  space  possiffie  to  the  notorious  French  Synedrion.  And 
this  not  alone  for  the  reason  that  while  of  the  former  our  knowl- 


98  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

edge  is  most  meager,  we  have  the  fullest  information  concerning 
the  latter,  but  also  because  the  French  Synedrion  appears  to  me  as 
the  most  jejune  and  least  Jewish  chapter  in  the  history  of  our  insti- 
tution. The  least  Jewish,  I  say,  for  both  the  Convocation  of 
Notables  and  the  subsequent  Synedrion,  the  combined  activity  of 
which  lasted  from  July  26,  1806,  to  March  25,  1807,  were  not  a  real 
outgrowth  of  the  existent  needs  among  the  Jews  of  France,  but 
rather  reflected  the  megalomania  of  Napeoleon.  On  May  30,  1806, 
this  monarch  issued  a  decree,  according  to  which  the  Jews  were  to 
hold  an  assembly  of  Notables,  under  imperial  supervision,  for  the 
sake  of  answering  certain  questions  anent  their  religion  and  their 
patriotism.  The  delegates  to  this  assembly,  including  some  really 
noted  rabbis  and  laymen,  were  not  selected  by  their  respective  com- 
munities, but  appointed  by  the  prefects  of  police.  The  initial  ses- 
sion was  held  on  a  Sabbath,  which  was  certainly  not  Jewish.  The 
leading  questions  submitted  to  the  assembly  were  as  to  whether  the 
Jews  loved  France  and  the  French,  whether  they  considered  the 
laws  of  the  land  binding,  whether  they  sanctioned  intermarriage 
with  Christians,  and  usurious  dealings  with  Christians.  Between 
these  were  sandwiched  in  several  minor  interrogatories.  What 
time  was  left  to  the  delegates  in  and  between  making  reply  to  these 
questions,  they  spent  in  conveying  compliments  to  the  monarch,  in 
a  display  of  oratory,  and  in  rhetorical  rodomontade — wherewith 
Napoleon  was  so  heartily  pleased  that  he  disclosed  to  the  Notables 
his  further  aspirations  on  behalf  of  Israel — his  desire  to  re-estab- 
lish the  Synedrion.  What  a  grand  vision!  The  centre  of  Jewish 
authority  in  France !  Paris  the  new  Jerusalem !  The  hearts  of  the 
Jews  the  world  over  turned  toward  the  capital  of  Napoleon !  The 
monarch  may  have  had  a  deep-seated  consciousness  of  the  utility 
of  such  a  cosmopolitan  ally  as  the  Jews ;  the  Synedrion,  mayhap, 
was  part  and  parcel  of  his  mad  craving  to  unify  the  world  under 
his  sceptre.  As  for  the  Jews,  however,  they  were  intoxicated  with 
the  plan;  they  saw  visions  of  a  new  age,  and  dreamt  dreams  of 
rejuvenation.  A  new  Ezra  was  arisen,  the  Emperor ;  a  new  Nehe- 
miah,  Napoleon!  However,  after  the  Synedrion  had  really  as- 
sembled (on  the  pth  of  February,  1807)  and  put  the  stamp  of  its 
authority  upon  the  work  of  the  Notables,  wnich,  Napoleon  said, 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  99 

would  make  the  latter  binding  for  all  Jews,  it  soon  discovered  that 
unless  it  be  for  the  making  of  long-winded  speeches  and  the  build- 
ing of  Babylonian  towers  of  phraseology,  it  really  had  no  raison 
d'etre.  And  thus  it  died  in  just  thirty  days,  leaving  as  its  only 
monument  in  the  history  of  the  Jews  in  France  the  institution  of 
the  Consistory,  regarding  the  utility  of  which,  needless  to  say,  there 
is  divergence  of  judgment.80 

VIII. 

What  made  the  French  Synod  so  un-Jewish  was  that  it  did  not 
respond  to  any  real  demand  of  the  people.  It  was  not  called  into 
being  to  readjust  any  social  relations  or  to  solve  pressing  problems ; 
it  was  engrafted  on  Jewish  history  by  the  vagaries  of  an  external 
personage.  That  it  might  have  followed  the  example  of  preceding 
Synods,  and  devoted  its  attention  to  the  disentanglement  of  con- 
fronting perplexities — to  the  reinterpretation  of  the  Torah,  you 
might  say — there  can  be  no  gainsaying ;  but  this  is  neither  here  nor 
there.  The  next  Synod  after  the  traditional  pattern — convoked, 
that  is,  for  the  distinct  purpose  of  readjusting  the  ancient  religious 
theories  to  a  new  environment  and  to  new  conditions  of  life — was 
not  to  occur  until  Reform  Judaism  was  strong  enough  to  spread 
its  wings  over  it.  And  this  event  took  place  at  Leipsic,  in  the  year 
1869.  In  saying  this,  I  omit  to  make  mention,  first,  of  the  Con- 
sistory of  Jacobson  which  was  organized  at  Cassel  in  1808;  and, 
secondly,  of  the  several  Rabbinical  Conferences  held  in  Germany  in 
the  second  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century.  My  reason  for  doing 
this  is  that,  as  for  the  former,  it  was  too  apish  a  copy  of  the  French 
Synod,  and  too  characteristic  a  product  of  Jacobson's  estheticism  and 
vainglory  to  require  notice,  and,  as  for  the  latter,  they  of  course  were 
not  Synods  at  all,  but  simply  deliberative  assemblies  of  rabbis.  Had 
I  enough  time  at  my  disposal,  nothing,  I  am  sure,  could  be  more 
appropriate  than  to  point  out  the  role  which  these  very  Rabbinical 
Conferences  have  played  in  the  molding  of  modern  Judaism:  how 

80  A  summary  of  the  questions  and  answers  of  the  French  Synedrion  may 
be  found  in  the  Year  Book  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis, 
1890-91,  p.  8of. 


ioo  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

the  caucus  called  by  Geiger  at  Wiesbaden  in  the  year  1837,"  and 
then  the  Conferences  at  Brunswick  in  1844,  and  at  Frankfort  in  1845, 
and  at  Breslau  in  1846,  all  strove  for  an  adjustment  of  historical 
Judaism  to  modern  conditions,  for  the  devising  of  means  by  which 
"  the  preservation  of  Judaism  and  the  awakening  of  the  religious 
sense  might  be  promulgated." '  But,  aside  from  my  disinclination 
to  overstep  my  limit  of  time,  the  Conferences  really  fall  beyond  the 
scope  of  my  paper,  since,  as  I  have  said,  they  were  mere  rabbinical 
associations,  and  not  deliberative  assemblies  of  both  rabbis  and  lay- 
men, Synods. 

The  Synod  which  met  at  Leipsic  from  the  29throf  June  to  the  4th 
of  July,  1869,  and  subsequently  at  Augsburg  from  the  nth  to  the 
1 7th  of  July,  1871,  was  not  the  child  of  a  day.  .  The  Rabbinical  Con- 
ferences had  done  their  share  in  preparing  the  day  for  it,  though 
even  more  anxiously  than  the  rabbis,  had  the  several  Reform  asso- 
ciations, particularly  the  Refonngenossenschaft  at  Berlin,  advocated 
it  and  bided  its  coming.  The  simple  fact  is,  that  the  new  condi- 
tions in  Germany,  grown  out  of  the  emancipatory  movement,  had 
aroused  universal  interest  among  the  Jews  in  the  problem  of  self- 
adjustment.  Emancipation  signified  the  end  of  the  era  of  isola- 
tion, the  end  of  judicial  autonomy,  it  denoted  full  citizenship,  and 
participation  in  the  political,  social,  and  educational  privileges  and 
duties  of  the  country.83  The  question  then  was,  how  the  ancient 
Law  was  to  affect,  and  to  be  affected  by,  these  new  circumstances. 
•It  was  a  climacteric  period  in  Jewish  history:  the  entrance  of  Israel 
into  Western  life.  A  day  like  the  day  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 
lem: then  the  Jews  had  lost  their  nationality;  now  they  found  it 
again.  That  tradition  needed  reinterpretation  was  commonly  felt; 
there  was  an  instinctive  self-assertion,  moreover,  of  the  synodal  idea. 
On  the  one  hand,  Rapoport,  one  of  the  parents  of  Jewish  science, 
advocated  the  founding  of  a  Synod  in  Galicia,  for  the  purpose  of 
settling  authoritatively  what  portions  of  rabbinic  literature  were  to 

81  Cf.  Jost,  Neuere  Geschichte,  III,  pp.  143-148;  Rabbinowitz,  Biography  of 
Zunz  (Hebr.),  pp.  156-159. 

82  Cf.  Jost,  ibid.,  p.  238  ff;  Year  Book  of  the  C.  C.  A.  R.f  loc.  cit.,  p.  81  ff. 

88  Cf.  Jost,  ibid.,  p.  6 ;  Lazarus,  Was  hcisst  national?  in  Treu  und  Frei,  p. 
95  ff. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  101 

be  considered  superannuated,  thus  to  allay  the  suspicions  of  the 
Government  concerning  any  anti-Christian  sentiment  allegedly  found 
in  it.84  On  the  other  hand,  you  could  find  throughout  Germany 
circles,  unions,  associations,  consisting  of  young  and  ardent  Jews, 
professional  students  and  laymen,  all  craving  after  a  certain  read- 
justment of  life,  and  feeling  the  strength  which  is  in  union.88 

The  Rabbinical  Conferences,  also,  were  so  many  columns  in  this 
structure  of  unification,  while  the  Synod  formed  the  keystone.  That 
the  Reformgenossenschaft  should  have  gloried  in  its  convention  was 
but  natural ;  for  many,  many  years  it  had  undertaken  single-handed 
the  remodeling  of  its  mode  of  worship  and  code  of  doctrines,  all 
the  time  emphasizing  the  provisional  nature  of  its  innovations  and 
leaving  them  subject  to  the  sanction  of  a  Synod.86  Nay,  as  early  as 
1846,  it  had  actually  attempted  the  convocation  of  such  a  Synod, 
which,  however,  proved  premature  and  futile.87  The  German  Synod, 
into  a  detailed  account  of  which  I  need  not  enter  here,  thus  aimed 
at  a  rejuvenescence  of  the  contents  of  the  Jewish  religion,  at  the 
proper  spiritual  bringing-up  of  the  rising  generation;  it  aimed  at 
the  spread  of  knowledge,  of  a  genuine  appreciation  of  religious  in- 
stitutions, and  of  a  religious  idealism,  where  ignorance,  materialism, 

84  Cf.  Jost,  ibid.,  pp.  84-88.     The  Synods  at  the  time  existing  in  Galicia  were 
mere  wheels  of  the  governmental  taxation  machine.    A  worthier  Synod  of 
Galician  Jews,  in  which  over  two  hundred  congregations  participated,  took 
place  at  Lemberg,  in  the  year  1878,  under  the  auspices  of  the  "  Shomer  Israel " 
association.     At  that  conference  numerous  religious  and  cultural  problems  of 
the  Galician  Jews  were  broached,  and  their  present  communal  organization 
was    devised.     Unfortunately,   the  much-promising   Synod   was    then   killed 
by  the  opposition  of  the  orthodox  rabbis,  under  the  leadership  of  R.  Simon 
Schreiber,  of  Cracow.     It  now  seems,  however,  to  have  been  revived.    A  con- 
vention of  the  Galician  congregations,  represented  by  about  two  hundred  dele- 
gates, was  held  recently  (May  1-3,  1900)  in  Lemberg,  at  which  the  confronting 
problems  of  religion  and  of  culture  were  discussed.     (N.  Samuely,  in  Voskhod, 
April  27,  1900;  Jewish  Chronicle,  May  4,  1900.) 

85  Most  notable  is  Der  Verein  fur  Cultur  und  Wisscnschaft  des  Judentums 
in  Berlin,  glowingly  depicted  by  Heine  in  his  eulogy  of  Ludwig  Marcus  (Ver- 
mischte  Schriften,  Vol.  II). 

86  Cf.  Jost,  loc.  cit.,  p.  253,  and  Gesch.  d.  Indent,  und  seiner  Sckten,  III,  p. 
381  f. 

87  Cf.  Jost,  Neuere  Geschichte,  p.  383. 


102  VIEWS   ON    THE    SYNOD 

superstition,  and  flat  commonplaces  had  come  to  prevail ;  it  aimed, 
above  all,  at  the  reduction  of  the  power  of  external  formalism  by 
an  instillation  of  greater  inwardness  into  religious  life,  and  by  an 
awakening  of  the  historic  sense  and  intelligence  among  the  people. 
The  Synod,  in  addition,  was  also  to  be  a  Zion — as  Dr.  Lazarus  has 
put  it — a  distinguished  place  whither  the  delegates  might  pilgrim 
periodically  and  find  an  abode  where — after  the  troubles,  the  trials, 
the  pettinesses  and  the  petulancies  of  daily  life — they  would  feel 
again  the  bliss,  the  buoyancy,  and  the  inspiration  that  flow  from 
genuine  spiritual  association.88  An  account  of  the  successes  and  the 
failures  of  the  Synod  cannot  here  be  attempted ;  but  who  will  gain- 
say the  important  role  played  by  it  in  the  making  of  our  latter-day 
Judaism  ?  It  is  a  role  parallel  to  the  part  of  the  Synods  at  all  other 
crossways  of  Jewish  history. 

IX. 

Whether  my  paper  has  made  it  apparent  that  the  Synod  has 
formed  "  the  warp  and  a  good  part  of  the  woof  "  of  our  religious 
history,  it  is  not  for  me  to  judge.  At  any  rate,  we  have,  by  simply 
following  the  course  of  events,  discovered  a  Synod  at  every  notable 
historic  juncture.  The  Elders,  the  Great  Synod,  the  Gerusia,  the 
Synedrion  of  Jerusalem,  the  Synedrion  at  Yamnia  and  its  success- 
ors, the  Babylonian  Synedria,  the  stately  series  of  Medieval  Synods 
covering  five  centuries  at  least^  the  Synods  of  Lithuania  and 
Poland,  the  Modern  Synods — their  records,  you  may  be  sure,  would 
make  the  best  synopsis  of  the  development  of  Judaism,  not  to  men- 
tion their  share  in  our  secular  history.  What  wonder,  then,  that 
this  genuine  Jewish  idea,  the  importance  of  the  Synod,  should  have 
swayed  most  strongly  the  man  than  whose  name  none  shall  shine 
more  brilliantly  in  the  annals  of  the  American  Jews?  What  won- 
der that  our  deeply  lamented  master,  our  sainted  leader,  should 
have  championed  in  this  country,  with  that  energy  and  power  of 
his  which  never  shall  cease  to  inspire,  the  founding  of  a  permanent 

88  Cf.  Lazarus,  Synodalreden  in  Treu  und  Frei,  pp.  1-52,  and  313-315;  par- 
ticularly pp.  8,  10,  33,  44  ff.  A  summary  of  the  work  of  the  Synods  may  be 
found  in  the  Y ear-Book  of  the  C.  C.  A,  R.,  loc.  cit.,  pp.  100-17. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  103 

Synod?  It  would  be  fascinating  to  dwell  now — now,  in  particular, 
that  for  the  first  time  his  beloved  voice  is  unheard  at  the  convention 
of  the  Conference — on  the  enthusiasm,  the  power,  the  clairvoyance, 
with  which  Isaac  M.  Wise  struggled  for  the  unification  of  Israel  in 
America,  and  for  the  founding  of  a  Synod.88  But  clearly  I  dare  not 
lend  myself  here  to  this  fascinating  pursuit.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that 
Dr.  Wise  observed  the  unprecedented  and  unparalleled  distinctive- 
ness  of  the  position  of  the  Jews  in  this  country  from  what  it  ever 
had  been  at  any  other  place.  None  saturated  with  the  spirit  of 
Jewish  tradition  but  must  admit  that  the  environment  called,  to 
employ  the  phrase  again,  for  a  reinterpretation  of  the  Torah.  And 
by  whom  had  such  work  always  been  accomplished?  By  Synods — 
conventions  of  Zeqenim  and  Sopherim,  Gedolim  and  Hakhamim, 
rabbis  and  laymen.  Wise  advocated  the  establishment  of  a  similar 
Synod — spoke  on  its  behalf  since  the  year  I848,80  wrote  and  fought. 
As  early  as  1855,  on  October  17,  he  had  managed  to  convene  an 
assembly  at  Cleveland,  attended  by  both  orthodox  and  reform  dele- 
gates, to  work  out  a  plan  for  synodal  organization — a  plan  proposing 
to  unite  all  the  Jews  of  the  country  and  to  centralize  the  captaincy 
of  all  their  national  affairs:  education,  the  charities,  and  communal 
work.91  But  not  only  was  this  plan  still-born,  but  all  its  successors 
also.  The  Synod  remained  to  his  last  day  one  of  Wise's  ideals,  of 
which,  however,  portions  have  been  realized  through  his  indefati- 
gable energy.  The  several  Rabbinical  Conferences — the  Philadel- 
phia Conference  of  1869,  the  Pittsburg  Conference  of  1885,  and  the 
Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis — you  all  know  to  have  been 
the  outcome  of  his  propaganda,  despite  the  fact  that  his  spirit  domi- 
nated not  at  all  the  first-mentioned,  and  only  partly  the  second; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  had  there  been  no  Dr/  Wise,  it  is  safe  to 
say,  there  should  have  been  no  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congre- 
gations. Both  the  rabbinical  and  the  congregational  unions  are 
manifestations  of  the  synodal  idea — they  are  two  fragments  of  the 
ideal  which  Wise  never  ceased  to  nourish  and  which  possibly  yet 
awaits  complete  realization:  the  continuance  of  the  Jewish  religion 

80  Cf.  Wise,  Address  of  Welcome,  in  the  Y ear-Book  referred  to  above,  p.  14  f. 
00  Cf.  ibid.,  and  Selected  Writings  of  Isaac  M.  Wise,  pp.  45-53. 
91  Ibid.,  pp.  71-73- 


IO4  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

in  the  New  World  through  the  medium  of  that  time-honored  Jewish 
institution,  the  Synod. 

FROM  DR.  SILVERMAN'S  MESSAGE,  DETROIT,  1903. 
A  SYNOD. 

In  this  connection  I  desire  to  remark  that  the  lack  of  a  central 
authority  is  not  only  felt  with  regard  to  general  secular  matters 
affecting  Jewish  interests  but  also  with  regard  to  ecclesiastical  mat- 
ters that  are  of  great  moment.  The  autonomy  of  congregations  is 
jealously  guarded  with  the  result  that  we  have  almost  as  many 
phases  of  Judaism  as  we  have  congregations.  The  Central  Con- 
ference of  American  Rabbis  has  mitigated  this  evil  to  a  great  extent 
by  bringing  the  rabbis  together  for  discussion  and  concerted  action 
on  matters  calling  for  unanimity.  But  there  is  no  denying  the  fact, 
that  much  of  the  value  of  our  deliberations  and  conclusions  is  lost 
because  we  lack  the  means  of  making  them  effective.  The  Con- 
ference has  thus  far  been  only  a  literary  and  deliberative  body 
whose  influence  has  only  been  suggestive  and  advisory.  For  many 
years  we  have  felt  this  weakness  which  has  been  recognized  by  all 
leaders  of  our  times  and  by  the  zealous  rabbis  of  former  genera- 
tions. Every  great  period  of  ancient  Israel  had  its  Sandhedrin  or 
Synod.  A  history  of  these  would  form  an  outline  of  the  develop- 
ment of  Judaism. 

We  feel  the  need  of  such  an  authoritative  ecclesiastical  body  in 
Judaism  to-day.  Whilst  the  Conference  endeavors  to  reach  and 
often  succeeds  in  obtaining  unanimity,  we  have  not  the  power  to 
enforce  our  decisions. 

When  a  year  ago*  we  reverted  to  this  subject  in  our  message  (vide 
Year-Book,  1902,  pp.  37  and  96),  the  Conference  acted  favorably 
thereon  and  agreed  to  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  to  consider 
the  possibility  and  means  of  extending  the  scope  and  increasing  the 
authority  of  the  Conference.  The  Committee  was  appointed,  but, 
owing  to  the  death  of  its  chairman,  Dr.  M.  Mielziner,  it  has  failed 
to  act  and  has  no  report  to  offer.  I  have,  therefore,  undertaken  to 
outline  a  tentative  plan  which  I  submit  to  your  consideration. 

I  have  realized  the  necessity  of  the  Conference  as  a  body  of  rab- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  105 

bis  remaining  intact  and  I  propose  that  we  create  a  joint  meeting 
between  the  Conference  and  lay  delegates  from  congregations. 
This  joint  assembly  is  to  be  called  a  Synod,  and  to  it  are  to  be  re- 
ferred such  conclusions  arrived  at  by  the  Conference  by  three- 
fourth  vote,  and  for  whose  execution  it  is  necessary  to  have  con- 
gregational authority.  The  lay  delegates  to  the  Synod  should  be 
limited  to  one  for  every  100  members  of  a  congregation,  but  every 
congregation  that  has  more  than  50  and  less  than  100  bona  fide 
members  shall  be  entitled  to  one  lay  delegate.  Rabbis  of  congre- 
gations can  only  become  members  of  the  Synod  if  they  belong  to 
the  Conference.  When  a  recommendation  of  the  Conference  has 
been  endorsed  by  a  three-fourth  vote  of  the  Synod,  it  shall  be  de- 
clared the  law  and  practice.  The  Synod  shall  meet  every  two  or 
three  years. 

It  is  imperative  that  such  a  Synod  be  convened  at  as  early  a  date 
as  possible  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  upon  the  following  matters 
on  which  the  Conference  has  already  acted : 

1.  Articles  of  Jewish  Theology. 

2.  How  to  further  Sabbath  Observance. 
•    3.  Best  Methods  of  Electing  Rabbis. 

4.  Best  Methods  of  Gaining  the  Unaffiliated. 

5.  Intermarriage. 

6.  Proselytism. 

7.  Cremation. 

8.  Uniformity  in  Synagogue  Music  and  Ritual. 

9.  Better  Observance  of  the  Festivals  and  Holy  Days. 
10.  Uniform  System  of  Religious  Instruction. 

DR.  JACOB  VOORSANGER. 

The  great  need  of  our  people  at  the  present  time  is  that  ctf  a  strong 
and  correct  definition  in  what,  aside  from  official  service,  charity  and 
the  natural  manifestations  of  virtuous  conduct,  Judaism  really  con- 
sists. To  punctuate  the  necessity  for  such  a  definition  we  need  not 
travel  beyond  the  environments  of  this  great  Sabbath  question.  Our 
people  generally  are  adversely  inclined  to  an  official  change  of  the 
day.  Assuming  for  a  moment  that  such  a  change,  which  is  not  and 
cannot  be  contemplated,  would  conduce  to  their  spiritual  content- 


io6  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

ment  and  the  strengthening  of  religious  ties,  under  what  authority 
could  each  Jew  sanction  for  himself  so  grave  and  radical  a  depar- 
ture? To  what  precedent  may  he  appeal?  By  what  dicta  will  his 
proceeding  be  justified  and  protected?  No  individual  rabbi  can 
sanction  the  change.  No  Jewish  congregation  can  presume  to  invest 
its  Sunday  service  with  the  character  of  a  Sabbath  celebration.  The 
question  at  issue  eminently  demonstrates  the  great  need  of  our 
American  congregations,  namely,  an  authority  to  which  all  questions 
of  discipline  and  religious  practice  may  be  deferred;  an  authority, 
democratic  enough  to  be  considered  representative  of  the  people  and 
yet  strong  enough  to  be  able  to  popularize  and  insure  acceptance  of 
its  decrees  and  decisions.  It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  the 
chaotic  state  of  our  ritual  practice  and  discipline  will  not  materially 
change  until  such  an  authority  has  been  properly  defined.  No  reli- 
gious organization,  if  we  consult  the  experience  of  history,  can 
permanently  flourish  without  presenting  its  constitutional  principles 
in  a  permanent  and  concrete  form.  American  Judaism  has  no  such 
permanent  form  at  the  present  time ;  and  until  it  has,  the  freedom 
with  which  many  questions  are  interpreted,  because  it  lacks  the  pro- 
tecting voice  of  a  collective  authority,  naturally  appears  as  unwar- 
ranted and  unsanctified.  Under  present  conditions  no  rabbi  has 
individually  any  authority.  No  congregation  can  legislate  upon  any 
question  affecting  the  vital  principles  of  Judaism  as  they  are  mani- 
fested in  the  life  of  individuals  or  communal  bodies.  And  yet,  here 
are  questions  which  affect  us  collectively :  and  even  this  Conference, 
composed  of  the  exponents  of  Jewish  principles  and  the  learned 
guardians  of  the  tradition,  has  no  power  to  legislate  upon  problems 
upon  which  much  of  the  future  of  American  Judaism  seems  to 
depend,  or  actually  does  depend.  Is  it  then  possible  to  create  an 
authority  that  could  competently  treat  every  question  by  the  success- 
ful solution  of  which  the  spiritual  unity  of  American  Judaism  can 
be  promoted? 

In  answer  to  this  last  question  the  following  scheme  of  organiza- 
tion is  respectfully  submitted  for  the  consideration  of  the  commission 
and  the  Conference : 

i.  State  Conferences  to  be  organized,  to  be  composed  of  the  rabbi 
and  president  of  each  congregation  within  the  State  and  three 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  107 

delegates  at  large  from  each  congregation.  Such  State  Conference 
will  have  opportunity  for  treating  and  discussing  all  matters  pertain- 
ing to  local  and  communal  administration. 

2.  At  a  certain  time  during  each  year  each  State  Conference  shall 
elect  five  delegates,  composed  of  two  rabbis  and  three  laymen,  to  a 
National   Conference  which,  according  to  the  present  number  of 
States  and  Territories,  would  at  the  present  time  count  two  hundred 
and  twenty-five  delegates,  composed  of  three-fifths  laity  and  two- 
fifths  clergy.     This  National  Conference,  or  whatever  its  designation 
may  be  hereafter,  shall  immediately  upon  its  convocation  and  organi- 
zation divide  into  two  bodies,  one  to  be  known  as  the  Central  Con- 
ference of  American  Rabbis,  the  other  representing  the  Union  of 
American  Hebrew  Congregations.     The  first  body  shall  discuss   and 
pass  upon  all  matters  pertaining  to  religion  and  discipline,  the  second 
shall  concern  itself  with  all  matters  pertaining  to  education  and 
administration;  but  both  bodies  shall  submit  their  conclusions  to  a 
ratifying  discussion  and  vote  of  the  joint  organization. 

3.  This  National  Conference  shall  elect  an  Executive  Council  of 
fifteen,  composed  of  nine  laymen  and  six  rabbis,  which  shall  repre- 
sent it  during  adjournment  and  constitute  the  actual  center  of  all 
religious  and  administrative  unity  of  American  Jewish  Congrega- 
tions. 

4.  The   National   Conference,   when   organized,    shall   invite   all 
national   Jewish  organizations   of   whatever  description  to  affiliate 
and  meet  concurrently  with  it,  so  that,  without  disturbing  the  auton- 
omy of  any  one  of  them,  they  may  all  report  to  one  central  agency, 
and  so  promote  the  national,  unity  of  Jewish  communal  life. 

5.  The  appointment  of  a  committee  of  five  to  carry  this  plan  into 
effect  is  herewith  requested. 

[Report  of  Sabbath  Commission,  Year  Book,  C.  C.  A.  R.,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  153  ff.  | 

FROM  DR.  M.  MARGOLIS'  PAPER  ON  "THE  THEOLOGICAL 
ASPECT  OF  REFORMED  JUDAISM,"  DETROIT,  1903. 

As  a  member  of  this  body,  I  move 

I.  That  this  Conference,  before  it  adjourns,  appoint  a  committee 
charged  with  preparing  the  Creed  of  Reformed  Judaism,  which 
work  shall  consist  of  a  brief  text  and  an  exhaustive  historical  and 


io8  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

theological    commentary    in    language    accessible    to    the    educated 
classes,  using,  if  it  so  choose,  the  draft  herein  presented  as  a  basis. 

2.  That  the  Committee  report  in  manuscript  to  the  Conference 
meeting  next  year. 

3.  That  the  Conference,  after  adopting  the  work  prepared  by  the 
committee,  or  a  similar  work,  lay  the  Creed  before  a  Synod  to  be 
convened  in  1905,  for  confirmation. 

4.  That  the  Synod  then  to  be  convened  consist  of  one-fifth  of 
the  members  of  this  body  duly  elected  in  the  Conference,  and  of 
an   equal   number  of  laymen   elected   by   the    Union   of  American 
Hebrew  Congregations,  and  that  two-thirds  of  the  membership  of 
the  Synod  constitute  a  majority  of  votes. 

5.  That  the  presiding  officer  of  the  Synod  be  a  member  of  the 
Conference. 

6.  That  the  Synod  promulgate  the  Creed  presented  to  it  by  the 
Conference  as  the  CREED  OF  THE  REFORMED  JEWISH  CHURCH  OF 
AMERICA,  and  that  the  Synod  act  upon  other  matters  only  when 
presented  to  it  by  the  Conference,  but  not  of  its  own  initiative. 

7.  That  the  Synod,  constituted  and  elected  in  the  same  manner 
as  for  its  first  convention,  meet  hereafter  every  five  years  and  act 
on  matters  laid  before  it  by  the  Conference,  and  that  the  quinquen- 
nial 'conventions  be  particularly  charged  with  the  revision  of  the 
Creed  if  such  revision  is  recommended  by  the  Conference. 

8.  That  the  Conference  have  a  standing  committee  on  Creed  and 
Doctrinal  Matters. 

FROM    MESSAGE    OF    DR.    JOS.    KRAUSKOPF,    PRESIDENT    OF 

CENTRAL  CONFERENCE  OF  AMERICAN  RABBIS,  TO 

THE  FIFTEENTH  ANNUAL  CONVENTION, 

LOUISVILLE,  KY.,  JUNE  27,  1904. 

I  strongly  recommend  that  at  this  session  the  Conference  enter 
seriously  upon  the  formation  of  a  Synod.  Our  late  lamented  leader 
and  founder,  Dr.  Wise,  whose  comprehensive  grasp  of  American 
Jewish  problems  is  -a  marvel  to  every  student  of  American  Jewish 
history,  and  whose  prevision  of  events  calls  forth  to-day  the 
admiration  of  even  one-time  foes,  realized  the  necessity  for  a 
synod  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago,  if  not  earlier,  and 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  109 

it  was  mainly  in  its  interest  that  he  organized  this  Conference. 
With  the  changes  of  time,  old  forms  and  institutions  lose  their 
one-time  accepted  binding  authority.  New  ones  arise  to  take 
their  place,  and  the  old  never  having  been  authoritatively  discarded 
or  the  new  authoritatively  accepted,  the  Rabbi  often  finds  himself 
in  a  quandary.  Time  and  again,  he  is  thrown  upon  his  own  resources 
for  decision,  and  his  conclusions  frequently  conflict  with  the  prefer- 
ences of  others,  in  some  instances  being  diametrically  opposite  to 
those  of  Rabbis,  even  of  his  own  school.  Much  of  the  contention 
and  embarrassment  arising  from  so  chaotic  a  state  of  affairs  could 
be  obviated  by  synodal  decision.  Instances  might  be  cited  to  sub- 
stantiate this  statement,  the  most  familiar  one  perhaps  being  the 
action  taken  by  this  body  some  years  ago  with  regard  to  the  rite  of 
admission  of  Non-Jews  into  the  Jewish  covenant.  There  are  a  score 
of  questions  of  greater  or  less  importance  that  require  synodal  de- 
cision to  relieve  the  Rabbi  of  considerable  perplexity  and  the  Jewish 
community  in  general  of  much  annoyance.  To  cite  only  one  case, 
there  is  the  question  as  to  what  constitutes  conversion  to  Judaism 
on  the  part  of  a  Non- Jewish  woman.  A  case  in  point  came  before 
the  court  in  Philadelphia  but  a  few  days  past,  and  is  worthy  of  being 
briefly  quoted:  A  certain  sum  of  money  was  left  by  will  to  a  son 
on  the  condition  that  he  marry  a  Jewess.  He  married  a  lady  of 
Non- Jewish  birth,  but  who  embraced  Judaism  prior  to  her  entering 
into  the  marital  state.  The  son's  right  to  a  share  of  the  money  was 
denied  on  the  ground  that  he  had  married  a  Non-Jewess,  the  oppos- 
ing attorney  claiming  in  open  court  that  he  could  not  conceive  "  how 
a  Jew  could  be  made  out  of  a  Gentile."  Then  there  is  the  vexing 
question  of  the  burial  of  Non-Jews  in  Jewish  cemeteries.  Jews 
and  Jewesses  have  married  outside  of  the  faith,  and  in  all  proba- 
bility will  continue  to  do  so,  without  the  Non- Jewish  party  entering 
the  Jewish  faith.  Frequently  burial  lots  are  purchased  by  the  Jew- 
ish party  of  such  union.  In  case  of  the  death  of  a  child  of  such  an 
alliance  or  that  of  the  Non-Jewish  spouse,  burial  is  by  many  Jewish 
cemeteries  denied  on  the  ground  that  the  right  of  burial  within  the 
cemetery  is  to  be  granted  to  Jews  only.  Serious  difficulties  ensue, 
and  frequently  appeal  is  made  to  the  courts.  The  Rabbi's  decision 
is  asked,  but,  even  when  given,  it  can  only  be  that  of  an  individual 


no  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

and  can  therefore  have  but  little  weight.  Like  unto  these,  many 
other  questions  arise  that  need  synodal  action. 

We  have  shrunk  from  the  word  synod  as  if  it  were  some  secret 
foe  of  Israel,  and  by  shrinking  from  it  we  have  but  exposed  ourselves 
to  real  and  open  foes.  What  we  really  shrink  from  is  the  fear  lest 
we  create  for  ourselves  a  Vatican,  and  voluntarily  place  ourselves 
under  the  tyranny  of  ecclesiastical  bondage.  But  that,  as  I  have 
already  endeavored  to  point  out,  is  an  impossibility  in  Israel. 
Enough  for  us  to  have  decisions  rendered  on  ritual  or  liturgical 
or  vital  religious  questions,  after  mature  study  and  deliberation  by 
an  authoritative  body  such  as  this,  merely  for  guidance,  to  be  fol- 
lowed or  not,  in  accordance  with  the  independent  judgment  of  each 
individual  or  community. 

And  such  quasi  authoritative  conclusions  could  possibly  be  reached 
in  accord  with  a  plan  something  like  this :  A  standing  committee  of 
seven,  designated  as  the  Synodal  Committee,  to  be  elected  by  the 
Executive  Board.  Synodal  questions  are  to  be  assigned  to  that 
committee,  at  least  a  year  or  two  before  their  presentment,  that  they 
may  be  thoroughly  considered  from  the  standpoint  of  Jewish  law, 
literature,  decision  and  opinion.  After  having  been  thus  considered 
by  the  Synodal  Committee,  the  questions  are  to  be  submitted  to  the 
Conference  together  with  a  digest  of  the  material  on  the  subject. 
For  the  discussion  of  synodal  questions  the  Conference  is  to  be 
divided  so  that  it  shall  comprise  an  upper  and  a  lower  house.  The 
upper  house  is  to  be  composed  of  such  Rabbis  as  have  been  actively 
in  the  ministry  at  least  fifteen  years,  those  who  have  ministered  less 
than  that  period  to  serve  as  members  of  the  lower  house.  Synodal 
questions  are  to  be  discussed  independently  in  each  house,  and  the 
conclusions  arrived  at  to  be  presented  before  the  entire  Conference, 
for  discussion  and  ultimate  decision.  The  younger  members  will 
then  not  be  awed  by  the  older  nor  the  older  carried  away  by  the 
impetuosity  of  the  younger,  each  profiting  from  the  other,  as  the 
Rabbis  taught,  p&Vtip  D*OBp  "idim  }p  D^Dp1?  DWDG?a  D^njnp  inn  njj>K 

This  may  be  one  method,  there  may  be  other  and  better  ones.  The 
best  will  undoubtedly  be  given  us  by  our  colleague,  Dr.  Enelow, 

"Happy  the  generation  in  which  the  old  listen  to  the  young,  and  happier 
still  the  generation  in  which  the  young  listen  to  the  old." 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  in 

who  has  given  the  subject  much  study  and  research,  more  espe- 
cially within  the  past  year.  We  trust  that  he  will  present  a  report 
at  this  session  and  that  you  will  give  it  the  attention  it  merits.  It  is 
true,  mere  mention  of  the  creation  of  a  synod  will  give  rise  to  criti- 
cism and  will  probably  call  forth  attack  in  quarters  where  innovation 
generally  meets  with  hostile  reception.  Such  has  been  the  fate  of 
every  wholesome  innovation  during  the  past  fifty  years.  Such  was 
the  fate  of  the  introduction  of  a  service  in  the  vernacular,  of  the 
family-pew,  of  the  organ,  the  Union  Prayer-Book,  the  establishment 
of  the  Hebrew  Union  College,  and  what  not.  As  reformers,  ours 
is  the  duty  to  lead.  Let  those  attack  who  will,  in  due  time  they  will 
admire  and  follow. 

REPORT  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON  SYNOD,  LOUISVILLE,  1904. 

To  the  President  and  the  Members  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis,  Louisville. 

"A  magnificent  historical  phenomenon,"  Geiger  has  called  Judaism — 
eine  grossartige  weltgeschichtliche  Erscheinung.  We  cannot  ignore  the  fact 
that  Judaism  is  an  historical  religion,  with  all  its  institutions  and  beliefs 
rooted  in  the  past,  and  having  gone  through  a  long  process  of  change  and 
adaption.  It  were  unwise  and  unworthy  to  undervalue  the  importance  of 
this  historicalness.  To  one  who  understands  the  secret  of  human  institu- 
tions, and  what  constitutes  the  source  of  their  influence  and  efficiency,  the 
historical  character  of  Judaism  will  at  once  appear  to  be  its  chief  beauty  and 
bulwark  of  strength.  It  is  well,  therefore,  in  the  consideration  of  our  imme- 
diate problems,  to  appraise  them  from  the  historical  standpoint,  and  when 
we  suggest  a  solution,  nothing  can  stead  us  more  than  the  certitude  that  our 
proposal  tallies  with  the  spirit  of  Judaism  in  the  past.  That  we  call  true 
conservatism,  not  the  insensate,  superstitious  sanctification  of  lifeless  cere- 
monies and  exploded  creeds — the  magnification  of  mummies — but  the 
development  and  preservation  of  our  faith  in  accord  with  the  spirit 
of  the  past,  and  an  honest  adaptation  of  its  time-honored  institutions  to  the 
needs  and  duties  of  the  present. 

The  intelligent  Reform  Jew  should  feel  this  obligation  more-  deeply 
than  his  Orthodox  brother.  We  have  no  quarrel  with  Orthodoxy;  we  have 
none  with  any  religious  organization.  As  far  as  inward  religion  is  con- 
cerned (which  is  the  only  practical  religion),  it  is  essentially  alike  whatever 
its  outward  form.  "  God  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways."  But  when  it  comes 
to  a  philosophic  or  theoretic  discussion  of  our  religious  problems  and  insti- 
tutions, there  is  a  wide  gulf  between  Orthodoxy  and  Reform.  It  is  a  differ- 
ence of  method.  Orthodoxy  is  guided  by  sentimental,  unreasoning  respect 


112  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

for  things  as  they  are,  and  in  its  historic  valuations  exercises  a  certain  arbi- 
trariness of  judgment.  Reform,  on  the  other  hand,  is  pledged  without  preju- 
dice to  the  historic  method,  looks  upon  the  whole  of  Jewish  history  as  an 
evolutional  process,  and  in  the  examination  of  the  contents  of  Judaism  seeks 
to  ascertain  the  fundamentals,  and  to  trace  the  growth  and  the  decay  of 
doctrines,  as  well  as  the  meaning  and  the  life  of  ecclesiastic  institutions. 
Wholeness  of  conception,  largeness  of  interpretation,  forms  the  excellence  of 
Reform  Judaism.  The  spirit  of  things,  whether  ideas  or  institutions,  is  its 
proper  study.  Lo  bisekhuth  aboth  hu  ba  ella  bizekhuth  ha-tora — "  the 
messianic  redemption  will  not  come  by  the  merit  of  the  Fathers  but  by  the 
merit  of  the  Tora."  Not  by  inactive  reliance  on  our  past,  and  babbling  about 
our  traditions,  but  by  absorption  and  development  of  the  spirit  of  Judaism, 
shall  we  work  out  and  fulfil  our  mission. 

For  this  reason,  it  is  our  paramount  duty  in  discussing  the  advisability  of 
an  American  Jewish  Synod,  to  ascertain  what  Jewish  history  has  to  say  on 
the  subject. 

The  Chairman  of  this  Committee  at  the  Buffalo  Conference  had  the  honor 
of  presenting  a  paper  on  the  Jewish  Synod.  It  was  of  a  purely  historical 
nature.  It  did  not  enter  into  a  discussion  of  the  feasibility  of  the  institu- 
tion at  present.  Indeed,  it  disclaimed  any  desire  to  do  so.  The  author  at 
the  time  was  anxious  in  a  dispassionate  way  to  present  the  results  of  an 
historic  inquiry.  And  this  is  what  his  study  demonstrated: 

(1)  The   Synod   is    a   typical   Jewish    institution,    found    at    every   critical 
juncture  of  Israel's  history  from  the  time  of  Moses  down. 

(2)  Though  the  Synod  in  Israel  has  not  formed  a  continuous  institution, 
suffering  interruption  and  discontinuance  again  and  again,  it  is  an  autoch- 
thonic   institution,   and  has   been   resuscitated   and   reorganized   at   different 
periods  according  to  the  needs  of  time  and  place. 

(3)  The  Synod  is  found  especially  at  the  crossways  of  history,  at  periods 
of  change  and  transition;  wherever  there  is  need  of  clarification  and  refor- 
mation in  the   religious  life,  and   wherever  new   conditions  tend  to   create 
confusion  and  anarchy  without  the  intercession  and  leadership  of  a  central 
council.     On  such  occasions,  the  Synod  has  served  as  clearing-house  of  ideas, 
and  secured  order  and  definiteness  of  purpose  and  policy  where  otherwise 
chaos  would  have  ensued. 

(4)  The   Jewish    Synod   has    always   comprised    representatives    from   the 
Laity  and  the  Scholars — the  specially  trained  theologians  and  the  community 
at  large.    This  combined  representation  has  differentiated  the  Synods  from 
mere  rabbinic  conferences. 

(5)  The  Synods,  particularly  in  Europe,  concerned  themselves  almost  ex- 
clusively with  the  regulation  of  Jewish  practice,  and  the   furtherance  and 
surveillance  of  communal  affairs.     Questions  of  doctrine  it  has  always  been 
Jewish  custom  to  leave  to  the  authoritative   decision  of  prominent   rabbis. 
Hence,  the  copious  rabbinic  literature  of  the  middle  age. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  113 

(6)  The  Synod  in  Israel  never  attempted  to  force  its  decrees  or  enact- 
ments on  any  community  not  .represented  at  its  convention.  As  for  those 
represented,  they,  by  the  very  act  of  participation,  pledged  themselves  mor- 
ally to  the  support  of  the  Tekanoth,  which  in  all  instances  they  did.  Some- 
times communities  and  rabbis  not  represented  were  solicited  for  their  approval 
of  the  Tekanoth  adopted  at  a  certain  Synod,  the  securing  of  which  rendered 
the  new  signatories  amenable  to  their  observance.  Within  the  communities 
so  obligated,  every  individual  was  held  accountable.  Infringement  of  the 
Tekanoth  was  threatened  with  the  ban. 

Now  the  question  presents  itself:  Is  there  anything  of  so  radical,  critical 
a  character  going  on  in  American  Judaism  as  to  suggest  or  necessitate  the 
creation  of  an  American  Jewish  Synod?  Surely,  our  religious  life  is  under- 
going, and  for  several  decades  has  been  undergoing,  a  very  critical  transmu- 
tation. Certainly  as  critical  as  the  change  which  produced  a  Synedrion  at 
Yamnia  and  in  Babylon,  and  which  necessitated  the  repeated  convocation  of 
Synods  in  medieval  Germany  and  France  and  Spain,  and  gave  birth  to  the 
Polish  Synods.  Our  problems  may  not  be  of  the  same  character  as  those  that 
confronted  the  Synods  just  named,  seeing  that  our  political  and  social 
status  has  changed  completely  and  that  the  latter  entered  very  largely  into 
the  Synodal  programs;  but  they  are  none  the  less  vital  and  none  the  less 
loudly  call  for  proper  solution. 

It  is  the  German  Synods  of  the  last  century,  the  Synods  of  Leipsic  and 
Augsburg  (1869  and  1871)  that  had  to  deal  with  questions  "most  closely 
resembling  those  confronting  us.  Those  questions  hardly  need  to  be  re- 
stated; every  careful  observer  knows  them.  It  is  simply  that  we  are  living 
in  a  condition  of  uncertainty.  Some  call  it  anarchy.  The  better  and  truer 
way  of  stating  it,  is  to  say  that  we  are  passing  through  a  period  of  transition. 
At  such  a  period  it  is  natural  that  the  need  of  a  central  organization  for  the 
regulation  (as  far  as  possible)  of  our  religious  life,  for  the  coherent  presen- 
tation of  our  purpose  in  the  world,  and  for  the  supervision  of  our  larger 
communal  affairs  should  be  expressed  on  all  hands. 

It  is  significant  that  at  the  last  Convention  of  the  Central  Conference  of 
American  Rabbis  the  plea  for  a  central  organization  should  have  come  from 
three  different  sources — the  President  of  the  Conference,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Sabbath  Commission,  and  the  author  of  the  learned  paper  on  the  Theology 
of  Reformed  Judaism.  It  is  felt  by  these  gentlemen,  and  a  great  many 
others  concur  with  them,  that  what  American  Judaism  needs  most  for  its 
self-clarification,  for  the  crystallization  of  its  ideas,  for  the  advancement  of 
its  mission,  and  for  the  unification  of  its  adherents,  is  a  central  institution, 
a  national  council  or  Synod. 

It  is  well  to  remember  that  this  cry  is  not  of  yesterday,  or  the  day  before. 
Indeed,  the  first  man  to  point  out  the  desirability  of  a  Synod  in  this  country 
was  Dr.  Wise,  of  blessed  memory.  It  was  he,  who  was  not  only  scholar  but 
also  far-sighted  leader,  that  recognized  the  essentiality  of  a  Synod  for  a  sure 
and  steady  development  of  Judaism  in  this  free  land.  The  Cleveland  Con- 


H4  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

ference  of  1855  admittedly  was  but  a  stepping-stone  to  a  Synod.  Its  plat- 
form confessed  itself  as  such.  "The  Conference  of  the  rabbis  and  congre- 
gational delegates,  assembled  in  Cleveland,  actuated  by  the  earnest  desire  to 
preserve  the  union  of  Israel  and  its  religion  by  mutual  understanding  and 
union,  and  convinced  that  the  organization  of  a  Synod  is  the  most  efficient 
means  to  attain  this  sacred  aim,  whose  legality  and  utility  is  taught  in  the 
Bible,  Talmud,  and  history,  consider  it  their  duty  to  convene  a  Synod  and 
call  upon  the  American  Jewish  Congregations  in  an  extra  circular  to  send 
their  ministers  and  delegates  to  the  said  Synod." 

Thus  ran  the  declaration.  That  the  times  were  not  ripe  and  circumstances 
inauspicious  for  the  successful  consummation  of  the  project,  we  all  know. 
We  know  what  a  time  of  dissension,  what  an  age  of  animosities  that  was. 
Not  out  of  such  could  the  Synod  come. 

The  failure  of  the  Synod  project  led*  to  the  advocacy  and  the  eventual 
formation  of  the  two  separate  organizations  American  Judaism  now  pos- 
sesses, the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  (1873)  and  the  Cen- 
tral Conference  of  American  Rabbis  (1889).  The  establishment  of  these 
distinct  associations  really  meant  the  subdivision  of  the  hypothetical  Synod. 
Suppose  the  two  bodies  to  act  together  on  any  subject  of  vital  concern,  and 
you  would  have  a  Synod  in  the  historic  sense  of  the  term.  None  will  deny, 
however,  that  as  separate  institutions  both  have  accomplished  incalculable 
good — the  Union  by  way  of  solidifying  the  congregational  life  of  American 
Jews,  and  fostering  educational  movements ;  the  Conference  in  bringing  about 
harmony  and  unity  among  the  rabbis  of  the  country,  raising  the  dignity  of 
the  Jewish  ministry,  clarifying  several  important  points  of  modern  Jewish 
doctrine,  simplifying  and  unifying  our  order  of  worship,  and  in  diverse  other 
ways  securing  the  welfare  and  stimulating  and  directing  the  energies  of  our 
religion. 

The  cry  at  present,  it  would  seem,  is  for  concerted  action.  The  Union  is 
in  its  nature  an  organization  of  laymen,  while  the  Conference  is  one  of 
theologians;  at  least,  that  is  what  the  community  at  large  thinks.  There  is 
the  most  accidental,  if  any,  sort  of  cooperation  between  the  two  bodies. 
This  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  both  are  devoted  to  the  same  cause  ultimately, 
namely,  the  practical  benefiting  and  advancement  of  American  Judaism. 
For,  while  it  is  true  that  the  Conference  occasionally  engages  in  purely  aca- 
demic discussions,  and  listens  to  scientific  papers,  none  will  deny  that  these 
latter,  as  far  as  the  Conference  is  concerned,  are  but  a  means  to  an  end. 
Lo  ha-Midrash  iqqar  ella  ha-Maase.  The  Conference  is  not  a  summer  school 
of  theology.  Its  purpose  is  practical.  While,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Union, 
in  its  endeavors  to  solve  our  communal  problems  and  to  serve  our  sacred 
cause,  is  rather  anxious,  one  would  judge,  to  act  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of 
enlightened  Judaism  as  revealed  by  thorough  study  and  interpreted  by  expert 
opinion. 

Naught  would  seem  more  natural,  therefore,  than  that  such  cooperation 
should  be  brought  about.  Not  only  would  it  mean  the  consummation  of  the 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  115 

original  plan  of  the  founder,  but  it  would  give  American  Israel — that  part 
of  it  we  represent — a  central  organization  of  the  character  Jewish  Synods 
have  ever  possessed. 

There  seems  to  exist  a  great  deal  of  dread  of  the  Synod.  The  word  is 
ominous,  unpopular.  Much  of  this  prevalent  apprehension  must  be  set  down 
as  superstition.  It  is  certainly  groundless.  Synod  means  council,  and,  as 
indicated  above,  it  has  again  and  again  existed  in  Israel.  It  has  never  done 
any  harm.  History  tells  us  nothing  to  that  effect.  One  cannot  even  cite 
instances  where  Jewish  Synods  had  acted  as  heresy-hunters  or  theologic 
policemen.  All  these  fears  and  phrases  are  imported.  Because  such  things 
have  happened,  and  do  happen,  in  the  Synods  of  other  faiths,  some  imagine 
that  heresy-hunting  and  the  manufacture  of  ironclad  creeds  are  part  and 
parcel  of  such  an  institution.  But  such  apprehensions  are  set  at  naught  by 
the  entire  history  of  the  Jewish  Synods,  which,  as  a  rule,  were  not  tribunals 
of  judgment  or  formulators  of  faith,  but  rather  organs  of  communal  activity 
and  progress. 

This  is  not  to  say  that  a  modern  Synod  might  not,  if  it  deemed  it  advisable 
to  do  so,  issue  an  authorized  statement  as  to  the  nature  of  Judaism,  and  the 
doctrines  of  its  belief.  We  must,  again,  bear  in  mind  that  the  needs  and 
tasks  of  Israel  have  changed  from  age  to  age,  and  if  to  formulate  our  faith, 
or  to  restate  our  doctrines,  be  our  chief  need  to-day,  both  for  the  sake  of 
clearing  up  the  minds  of  our  own  brethren  and  for  the  enlightenment  and 
persuasion  of  the  world,  there  would  be  no  reason  why  a  Synod  should  not 
assume  that  high  responsibility,  and  it  would  be  a  shame  to  play  the  ostrich 
and  hide  our  heads  in  the  sands  of  indifference.  Nor  would  the  issuance  of 
such  a  statement  by  the  Synod,  embodying  the  best  thought  of  the  best  men 
we  could  marshal,  involve  any  one  differing  from  it  in  the  awfully  and 
solemnly  prognosticated  calamity  of  excommunication.  The  Synod  would 
depend  for  its  triumphs  upon  the  compulsive  and  conquering  power  of  Truth, 
and  the  measure  of  Truth  represented  by  it  would  be  the  guarantee  of  its 
success.  Spiritual  despotism  and  ecclesiastic  coercion  would  lie  outside  its 
province. 

It  must  be  noted,  moreover,  that  the  medieval  ban  which  fills  some  of  us 
with  ghastly  fear,  was  really  an  outgrowth  of  the  social  and  political  position 
of  the  Jews  and  was  not  employed,  primarily  like  excommunication  in  other 
churches,  as  a  weapon  against  heretics.  The  medieval  Jews  formed  a  separate 
community  wherever  they  lived,  and  had  a  judicial  system  of  their  own  which 
governed  all  their  internal  relations.  It  was  necessary  that  they  should  have  a 
special  punitory  system  to  give  effect  to  their  courts,  and  it  is  of  this  latter 
that  the  ban  constituted  a  part.  It  was  the  medieval  Jewish  way  of  segre- 
gating an  offender,  and  corresponded  in  purpose  to  modern  incarceration. 
With  the  collapse  of  the  Ghetto  and  its  courts  of  justice,  the  ban  also  was 
doomed.  All  efforts  to  endamage  the  synodal  idea  by  appeals  to  the  modern 
dread  and  disapproval  of  excommunication  lack  historical  support,  which  even 
the  cases  of  Uriel  Acosta  and  Spinoza  cannot  furnish. 


u6  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

Ofttimes  one  hears  remarks  by  men  posing  as  representatives  of  the 
older  German  Reform  movement,  posing  as  the  only  true-blue,  true-bred 
Reform  rabbis,  as  if  the  Synod  idea  were  a  purely  American  invention,  a 
vagary  of  the  young  dreamers  of  this  Republic,  an  aberrancy  of  the  young 
decadents.  No  Synod,  they  boast,  as  long  as  there  are  German-bred  rabbis 
among  us !  None  would  say  a  word  of  detraction  concerning  the  German 
masters  and  pioneers  of  Reform  Judaism — none  that  has  drunk  of  their 
waters  and  marveled  at  their  wisdom.  But  let  us  not  falsify  them!  The 
fact  is  that  the  need  of  a  modern  Jewish  Synod,  for  the  careful  regulation  of 
our  transforming  religious  life,  was  first  perceived  and  eloquently  advocated 
in  Germany.  It  was  there  that  the  communal  conscience,  in  days  when  it 
was  still  quick  to  the  requirements  and  sanctity  of  Judaism,  clamored  for  a 
Synod,  and  made  every  innovation  in  the  polity  and  practice  of  individual 
congregations  subject  to  the  ultimate  approval  of  a  general  council.  It  was 
in  Germany  that  the  two  Synods  Reform  Judaism  has  ever  had  were  held, 
the  Synods  of  Leipsic  and  Augsburg,  at  both  of  which  that  illustrious  philoso- 
pher and  idealist,  that  loyal  and  eloquent  Jew,  Professor  Lazarus,  presided, 
with  Abraham  Geiger,  the  Ezra  of  Reform  Judaism,  as  Vice-President. 
That  the  Synod  was  discontinued  in  Germany  proves  nothing  against  its 
character  and  does  not  write  failure  across  its  name  for  all  time  to  come. 
For  even  so  we  know  that  the  rabbinical  conferences  did  not  last  in  Ger- 
many, and  yet  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  has  shown  the 
feasibility  and  fruitfulness  of  such  an  institution.  It  does  not  follow  from 
the  fate  of  the  German  Synods  that  a  similar  American  institution  would  be 
short-lived. 

Neither  is  the  utility  of  a  Synod  disproved  by  the  fact  that  this  or  that 
enactment  of  any  previous  Synod  a  generation  afterward  may  have  been 
ignored  or  overlooked,  and  the  discussion  thereof  reopened.  The  Jewish  Synod 
has  never  claimed  finality  for  its  opinions,  has  never  legislated  for  all  times, 
and  history  shows  that  our  Synods  again  and  again  have  altered  or  amended  or 
reaffirmed  the  enactments  of  their  predecessors.  This  has  saved  the  Jewish 
Synod  from  ecclesiastic  despotism  and  the  presumption  of  infallibility,  and 
has  preserved  for  it  the  character  of  a  deliberative  and  advisory  institution, 
adaptable  to  the  times,  and  expressive  at  the  several  periods  and  in  different 
countries  of  the  communal  conscience  and  needs  of  Israel. 

Some,  however,  rebel  against  the  synodal  institution  on  the  ground  that  it 
may  narrow  or  confine  Judaism.  It  is  affirmed  that  Judaism  is  broad  beyond 
measure,  that  it  is  a  philosophy,  an  ethical  principle,  a  mission,  and  such  like, 
and  that  it  cannot  be  promoted  by  the  pronouncements  of  Synods.  But  wo 
must  remember  that  whatever  be  the  foundation  and  the  goal  of  Judaism,  be 
it  purely  philosophical  or  ethical  or  anything  else,  it  is  presented  by  us  to 
the  world  as  a  religion.  And  a  religion  cannot  thrive  on  the  mere  abstract 
concepts  of  a  few  highly  trained  philosophic  minds,  or  the  remote  visions  of 
idealists. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  the   religion  the    Prophets  taught   was   not 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  117 

uttered  as  mere  abstract  speculation  or  philosophic  idealism,  but  had  a  definite 
social  setting  and  political  background,  and  was  founded  on  a  theology  the 
chief  elements  of  which  were  commonly  accepted.  Any  student  of  the  Bible, 
with  critical  insight,  can  derive  from  the  messages  of  the  Prophets  their 
theologic  creed,  which,  it  may  be  stated  in  general,  had  its  foundation  in 
national  history,  even  though  in  the  long  run  it  outgrew  the  national  frame. 
It  is  idle  to  deny,  and  foolish  to  forget,  that  in  biblical  times  the  Nation 
jvas  the  visible  centre,  the  soul  of  Israel's  religion,  and  that  the  Prophets 
sought  to  make  the  national  institutions  the  vehicle  of  their  religious  ideas. 
Similarly,  it  cannot  be  gainsaid  that  throughout  the  subsequent  history  of 
Israel  the  national  sentiment  formed  not  only  the  hope,  but  also  the  centre 
of  Jewish  life.  Subconsciously  there  lurked  in  every  Jewish  heart  the  con- 
viction that  somewhere  in  the  distant  future  the  miraculously  reestablished 
Jewish  State  would  form  the  centre  of  Judaism.  That  fundamental  concept 
was  never  absent;  it  was  the  mainspring  of  the  Jewish  creed;  and  without 
direct  or  indirect  reference  to  it  no  Jewish  philosophy  was  written.  This 
is  to  say,  that  if  the  Prophets  in  biblical  times  and  the  philosophers  of  the 
middle  age  did  not  advocate  the  establishment  of  any  specific  ecclesiastic 
institution,  it  was  not  because  they  held  that  Judaism  was  merely  an  intel- 
lectual and  spiritual  theory,  and  could,  nay  must,  do  without  any  visible 
organization,  but  rather  because  with  them  the  organization  behind  Judaism 
was  the  Nation — either  real  or  imaginary.  This,  of  course,  does  not  mean 
that  their  religious  outlook  was  narrowly  national ;  for  the  religion  of  the 
Prophets  stood  for  the  broadest  universalism.  But  the  Nation  was  looked 
on  as  the  centre  from  which  the  religion  was  to  issue  into  the  world,  its 
practical  organization,  its  instrument  of  work. 

It  is  only  Reform  Judaism  that  has  consciously  and  unequivocally  cut  loose 
from  the  National  conception  of  Israel's  destiny.  Aforetime  this  non- 
nationalist  idea  of  Judaism  may  have  existed  in  germ,  but  Reform  Judaism 
has  brought  it  into  full  efflorescence.  Israel,  we  maintain,  is  a  Church,  in 
the  broad  sense  of  the  term;  in  the  sense  that  was  uppermost  in  Ezra's  mind 
after  the  Return,  and  in  the  minds  of  the  Pharisaic  masters,  and  of  the  ethical 
teachers  of  the  middle  age,  only  without  all  those  national  appendages  which 
clung  to  their  ideas.  We  realize  that  a  religion  can  work  best,  and  on  a 
broader  scale,  without  wearing  a  national  uniform.  We  realize  that  a  spir- 
itual community  is  higher  and  more  lasting  than  a  political  state.  And  a 
spiritual  community  is  a  Church.  The  stronger,  the  larger,  and  the  better 
organized  such  a  church  is,  the  better  the  chances  of  victory  for  the  religion 
it  incarnates  and  seeks  to  advance. 

On  this  subject  some  observations  of  Professor  Toy  may  be  helpful. 

"The  conquering  religion,"  he  says  in  his  famous  book,  "Judaism  and 
Christianity,"  "offers  what  is  needed  in  the  way  of  precision  and  organiza- 
tion. It  will  possess  not  only  a  general  fundamental  religious  idea,  but  also 
the  framework  necessary  to  give  it  popular  acceptation.  A  simple  ethical- 
religious  conception,  however  broad  and  pure,  is  usually  neither  intelligible 


n8  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

nor  acceptable  to  the  masses  of  men;  they  demand  in  addition  a  drapery  of 
processes  and  forms,  a  certain  quantity  of  machinery,  a  routine  by  which  life 
may  be  ordered.  There  is  no  instance  on  record  of  wide  popular  acceptance 
of  a  religious  system  whose  essence  was  merely  a  principle  of  the  inward 
life;  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  a  reformer  who  should  confine  him- 
self to  this  subjective  ethical-religious  sphere  would  be  successful  unless  his 
work  were  supplemented  ...  A  conquering  religion  must  be  a  church  if  it 
is  to  have  a  visible  organized  victory." 

It  is  certainly  true  that  Reform  Judaism  has  these  many  decades  been 
protesting  that  Israel  has  naught  save  a  religious  mission.  If  so,  it  is  our 
duty  to  provide  ourselves  with  all  those  institutions  and  instruments  which 
are  indispensable  to  the  success  of  a  religion.  It  has  become  impossible  to 
continue  to  halt  between  the  two  opinions :  Is  Israel  a  Nation  or  a  Church  ? 
Not  alone  for  the  spread  of  Judaism  in  the  world,  but  also  for  the  sake  of 
the  continued  loyalty  of  those  born  within  Israel's  household,  we  must  come 
to  clear  decisions,  and  have  a  crystallization  of  ideas.  Otherwise,  we  shall 
remain,  like  the  old  man  in  the  Talmudic  story,  kereah  mikkan  wekereah 
mikkan,  "bald  from  here  and  bald  from  there." 

The  fact  is  that  the  Synod  has  shown  its  usefulness  and  necessitousness  as 
a  communal  institution,  not  as  supervisor  or  dictator  of  the  individual  con- 
science, not  as  instructor  of  individual  disciples,  but  rather  as  upbuilder  and 
guardian  of  the  larger  work  of  Israel.  According  to  the  needs  of  the  age 
its  interests  have  changed,  and  must  change ;  but  it  must  be  the  centre  of  the 
Jewish  community.  The  truth  is  that  no  matter  how  spiritual  a  program 
you  may  have  before  you,  you  must  have  institutions  through  which  to  work 
it  out.  "  Whoever  appoints  a  place  for  his  Tora,  his  enemies  shall  fall  under 
him,"  R.  Simeon  b.  Yohai  is  reported  to  have  said:  Kol  ha-qobea  maqom 
letoratho  oyebhaw  nophelin  tahtaw.  The  Synod  is  designated  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  Israel's  cause,  of  his  corporate  welfare.  Dr.  Schreiner  has 
well  said  in  his  noteworthy  book  ("Die  jiingsten  Urteile")  :  "The  originally 
non-Jewish  concepts  which  have  crept  into  Judaism  reached  permanent  im- 
portance only  when  they  were  adopted  into  Judaism  by  prominent  teachers 
of  the  Synagogue.  And  (this  is  true  of  the  entire  history  of  Judaism) 
Judaism  through  its  institutions  introduces  every  individual  right  into  the 
heart  of  the  historical  life  of  the  Jewish  community."  It  is  in  this  sense,  we 
take  it,  that  Dr.  Wise  has  written  of  the  conference  which  was  to  pave  the 
way  for  a  Synod.  "  We  convened  the  Conference  in  Cleveland  to  bring  life 
into  all  congregations,  so  that  the  one  may  not  remain  stagnant  while  the 
others,  reforming  head  over  heels,  break  with  the  history  of  our  people." 

We  can  well  imagine  that  had  there  been  a  Synod  in  American  Israel  these 
fifty  years,  an  institution  which  conscientiously  and  cautiously  would  have 
led  our  congregations — not  by  coercion  but  by  united  thought  and  counsel — 
through  the  period  of  transformation,  our  reforms  would  not  have  come 
so  thick  and  threefold;  but  think,  on  the  other  hand,  how  much  confusion 
and  laxity  and  egoistic  perversion  we  might  have  been  spared !  Haste  is 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  119 

waste.  Israel  is  not  atomistic  Congregationalism.  It  is  not  only  a  collection 
of  separate  synagogues,  but  a  community;  there  is  such  a  ttfing  as  Keneseth 
Yisrael,  we  believe,  with  a  communal  mission.  And  such  a  community  ought 
to  have  a  central  organ  of  work  and  influence,  call  it  by  whatever  name  you 
choose.  "The  Synod,"  Dr.  Lazarus  said  at  Augsburg,  "must  care  not  only 
for  the  daily  bread  of  the  petty  burning  questions,  but  for  the  real  and 
genuine  growth  of  the  ideas  in  Judaism,  those  that  shall  sprout  in  the  future." 
The  Synod  must  be  the  Zion  of  Judaism,  particularly  of  Judaism  detached 
from  political  Zionism.  It  must  be  the  heart  of  the  Jewish  community. 

We  believe  that  the  Conference,  which  has  hitherto  successfully  accom- 
plished difficult  tasks,  should  now  address  itself  to  the  formation  of  such  a 
central  body  as  has  been  indicated.  There  has  been  ample  evidence  of  late 
years  that  members  of  the  Conference,  some  if  not  all,  believe  the  times  ripe 
for  this  important  step.  At  the  last  convention,  as  has  been  said,  the  same 
suggestion  came  from  three  sources.  In  other  quarters,  also,  the  question 
of  the  establishment  of  a  central  organization  has  been  mooted.  There  is  no 
reason  why  to  such  a  central  body  the  time-honored  name  Synod  should  not 
be  given,  a  name  fraught  with  meaning  in  Jewish  history,  despite  the  fact 
that  it  is  the  style  now  to  hold  it  up  as  a  bogey.  It  is  not  likely,  of  course, 
that  the  work  of  a  Jewish  Synod  in  America  would  reproduce  or  parallel  the 
work  of  any  previous  Synod  in  the  Old  World.  Our  conditions  of  life  have 
changed,  and  so  have  our  tasks.  But  to  any  one  deeply  interested  in  the 
purposes  and  the  spiritual  program  of  Judaism  it  must  be  plain  how  many 
duties  would  and  could  fall  within  the  scope  of  such  a  council,  and  how  much 
good  it  might  effect.  The  propaganda  of  Judaism,  the  spread  of  it  among 
Jews  and  non-Jews,  the  securing  of  its  future,  as  well  as  its  support  in  the 
present — such  would  be  the  larger  items  on  the  program.  And  such  work 
can,  and  ought  to,  be  done  by  a  representative  body  of  Jews,  representing  both 
the  laity  and  the  ministry,  the  scholars  and  the  men  of  affairs — a  democratic 
institution  such  as  shall  befit  the  spirit  of  our  country  and  our  religion. 

Neither  shall  such  an  institution  be  hurt  by  having  the  hated  word  eccle- 
siasticism  flung  at  it.  For  it  will  not  be  guilty — it  will  make  it  its  business 
not  to  be  guilty — of  any  ecclesiasticism  in  the  bad  sense:  of  any  heresy- 
hunting,  creed-clubbing,  intellectual  despotism,  or  the  monopoly  of  heaven. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  will  be  an  ecclesiastic  institution  in  the  proper  sense, 
representing  the  Church  of  Israel — Keneseth  Yisrael — thus  emphasizing  the 
true  character  and  mission  of  the  denationalized  Jew  and  doing  all  in  its 
power  to  accomplish  his  mission  in  the  world.  The  world  lives  by  its  insti- 
tutions. Influences  are  spread  through  them.  The  Jew  needs  a  central  insti- 
tution. If  Israel  is  a  Nation,  it  must  be  Zion.  If  Israel  is  a  Church,  it 
must  be  a  Synod.  We  have  no  patience  with  those  who  maintain  that  Israel 
is  neither  Nation  nor  Church,  but  an  indefinable  something.  Of  course,  inde- 
finable somethings  need  no  representative  institutions;  but  neither  can  they 
thrive  and  win  the  world. 

We  repeat,  the  Conference  should  address  itself  to  this  task  of  forming  a 


I2O  VIEWS   ON    THE    SYNOD 

central  administrative  body  for  American  Judaism.  This  is  as  much  as  we 
can  do  for  ouf  religion.  An  ecumenical  Synod  is  out  of  the  question  at 
present,  though  there  is  no  reason  why  that  should  be  so  forever.  Lo  alekha 
ha-Melakha  ligemor  welo  ata  bhen  horin  lehibatel  mimmena.  The  start  must 
be  made  somewhere.  And  if  it  be  true,  as  a  great  many  believe,  that  the 
future  of  Judaism  lies  in  America,  then  a  strong  central  institution  in  this 
country  must  prove  of  ever  growing  importance  to  the  cause  of  our  ancestral 
religion.  Nor  does  it  seem  possible  to  deny  that  the  form  of  Judaism  to 
which  the  Jew  in  America  will  continue  to  gravitate  is  Reform  Judaism,  no 
matter  how  hard  our  Tories  and  Rip  Van  Winkles  may  try  to  resuscitate  the 
things  that  are  dead  and  with  the  magic  wand  of  Romance,  and  argumenta- 
tive conjuration,  seek  to  revive  deceased  ceremonies  and  institutions  long 
interred.  With  America's  assumption  of  the  hegemony  in  Israel  shall  grow 
the  importance  of  Reform  Judaism  and  its  central  organization. 

And  for  the  founding  of  such  an  institution  the  times  were  never  so 
auspicious.  We  have  a  sufficient  sense  of  unity  developed  among  the  rabbis, 
and  a  large  number  of  earnest  devotees  of  the  cause;  and  likewise,  there  is  a 
considerable  contingent  of  laymen  in  our  congregations  who  are  enlightened 
enough,  and  very  enthusiastic,  to  help  further  and  upbuild  the  holy  work 
of  Israel. 

The  following  plan  of  organization  is  therefore  suggested: 

(1)  The  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  and  the  Union  of  Ameri- 
can Hebrew  Congregations  shall  conjointly  form  the  American  Jewish  Synod. 

(2)  Neither  of  the  constituent  bodies  of  the  American  Jewish  Synod  shall 
by  this  act  of  confederation  lose  its  identity  or  discontinue  its  periodic  con- 
ventions and  regular  activity. 

(3)  The  Synod  shall  consist  of  one-fifth  of  the  members  of  the  Conference 
and  an  equal  number  of  laymen  from  the  Union,  all  duly  elected.    Two-thirds 
of  the  membership  of  the  Synod  shall  constitute  a  majority  of  votes. 

(4)  The  Synod  shall  meet  every  five  years  for  the  consideration  of  ques- 
tions submitted  to  it  by  either  the  Conference  or  the  Union. 

(5)  The  Synod  shall  have  an  executive  board  of  at  least  ten  men,  consist- 
ing of  the  President,  who  shall  be  a  member  of  the  Conference,  and  five 
members  from  the  Conference  and  four  members  from  the  Union. 

The  general  task  of  the  Synod  may  be  summed  up  in  one  of  the  paragraphs 
framed  by  the  Synod  of  Augsburg : 

"The  Synod  shall  aim  to  be  an  organ  of  the  development  (now  taking 
place).  Through  it  the  convictions  and  aspirations  that  animate  modern 
Judaism  shall  find  definite  expression.  With  a  clear  purpose  it  shall  work 
to  the  end  that  the  transformation  for  many  decades  striven  after  in  Juda- 
ism shall  be  guided  as  far  as  possible  by  an  harmonious  spirit  and  be  led  to  a 
successful  consummation  with  the  utmost  possible  regard  for  the  needs  of  all 
our  coreligionists.  It  shall  guard  the  ties  of  union  now  encircling  our 
fellows  in  religion  against  loosening,  and  according  to  its  powers  advance 
our  common,  higher  interests  in  life  and  learning." 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  121 

And  again:  "The  Synod  arrogates  for  its  decisions  no  other  authority 
save  that  which  springs  from  the  power  of  truth,  of  holy  zeal,  and  strong 
conviction;  but  it  is  aware  that  this  force,  which  is  the  only  kind  to  be 
exercised  in  the  realm  of  religion,  is  irresistible,  and  will,  in  the  long  run, 
despite  difficulties  and  obstacles,  gain  the  victory." 

It  may  be  well  to  conclude  with  the  remark  of  Mr.  Israel  Abrahams,  the 
eminent  scholar,  anent  the  suggestion  of  the  President  of  the  Central  Con- 
ference of  American  Rabbis  at  last  year's  convention :  "  This  is  an  important 
proposal,"  Mr.  Abrahams  says  concerning  the  Synod,  "  and  one  that  otfght  to 
be  fruitful  of  much  good.  We  badly  need,  everywhere  in  Judaism,  that  joint 
lay  and  clerical  authority  which  alone  can  win  acceptance.  The  problems  of 
to-day  can  only  be  solved  by  the  combined  wisdom  and  experience  of  the  men 
of  affairs  and  the  men  of  books.  To  lay  down  decisions  as  to  what  is  or 
is  not  permissible  under  modern  conditions  of  Jewish  life — this  is  a  thor- 
oughly desirable  purpose  which  a  Synod  might  serve." 

May  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  be  granted  the  wisdom 
and  power  to  father  such  an  institution! 

Respectfully  submitted, 

H.  G.  ENELOW,  Chairman. 

MAJORITY  AND  MINORITY  REPORTS  ON  SYNOD  QUESTION, 
LOUISVILLE,  1904. 

MAJORITY  REPORT. 

Ad.  I.  It  is  becoming  more  and  more  apparent  that  a  central  religious  organi- 
zation is  needed  in  American  Israel.  Questions  of  religious,  ethical  and  com- 
munal import  are  arising  constantly  which  should  be  considered  and  pro- 
nounced upon  by  such  a  body.  A  synod  consisting  of  rabbis  and  of  delegates 
from  the  people  is  a  historic  and  traditional  institution  in  Israel.  We  there- 
fore endorse  the  recommendation  of  the  President  referring  to  this  need. 
Such  synod  shall  not  be  an  ecclesiastical  court  with  power  to  dictate  to  the 
individual  conscience,  to  restrict  or  interfere  in  any  wise  with  freedom  of 
either  belief  or  conduct.  The  purpose  of  such  a  synod,  in  our  judgment, 
is  to  guide  by  a  consensus  of  academic  and  practical  wisdom  and  thereby 
educate  Jewish  public  opinion. 

We  recommend  that  a  pamphlet  be  prepared  by  the  Executive  Committee 
containing  the  paper  on  Synod  read  by  Dr.  Enelow  at  Buffalo,  the  sugges- 
tions contained  in  the  messages  of  Presidents  Silverman  and  Krauskopf  at 
Detroit  and  Louisville,  the  suggestions  made  in  the  report  of  the  Sabbath 
Commission  presented  at  the  Detroit  Conference,  the  remarks  in  Dr.  Mar- 
golis'  paper  on  "Theological  Aspects  of  Reformed  Judaism,"  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Synod  submitted  at  Louisville,  Dr.  Felsenthal's  paper  on 
"  Some  Jewish  Questions,"  the  majority  and  minority  reports  on  recommenda- 
tion No.  i  of  President  Krauskopfs  message,  together  with  such  other  expla- 


122  VIEWS    ON    THE    SYNOD 

natory  material  as  the  Committee  shall  deem  necessary;  five  thousand  copies 
of  the  same  shall  be  printed  and  distributed  so  as  to  bring  the  matter  before 
the  Jewish  people  of  this  country  and  thus  enable  them  to  form  an  intelligent 
judgment  on  the  subject. 

We  recommend  that  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Conference  take  the 
necessary  steps  preparatory  to  the  convening  of  a  preliminary  meeting  to  effect 
the  organization  of  a  synod  in  conformity  with  these  principles. 

DAVID  PHILIPSON. 

MAX  HELLER. 

JOSEPH  STOLZ. 

MAX  MARGOLIS. 

MAURICE  H.  HARRIS. 

MINORITY  REPORT. 

There  are  certain  parts  in  the  report  in  regard  to  which  we  disagree  from 
the  majority,  and  to  which  we  cannot  subscribe.*  Foremost  among  these 
parts  is  the  proposition  to  create  a  central  institution  to  be  called  "a  synod." 
There  is  no  necessity  of  pursuing  such  centralizing  tendencies  in  American 
Israel.  If,  for  practical  purposes,  and  only  for  practical  purposes — we  mean, 
for  such  purposes  which  concern  the  welfare  of  Israel  in  general,  conjoint 
action  becomes  necessary,  then  let  conferences  ad  hoc  be  called.  But  a  stand- 
ing central  synod  is,  we  repeat,  unnecessary.  Furthermore,  the  synod  idea, 
in  its  very  kernel,  is  a  dangerous  one.  Insignificant  as  at  present  the  idea 
may  appear,  and  innocent  as  it  may  look  to  the  furtive  observer,  yet,  if  we 
examine  the  matter  more  closely,  we  must  conclude  that  there  is  poison  in 
that  seed,  and  this  poison  may  spread  out  and  produce  in  coming  times  ills 
and  dangers  to  American  Israel  not  yet  dreamt  of.  To  the  words,  "  a  synod 
for  American  Israel,"  a  very  bad  odor  has  become  attached  during  the  last 
fifty  years.  While  in  other  parts  of  the  world  and  at  other  times  in  history 
the  word  synod  may  have  had  an  innocent  meaning,  in  America  it 
embodies  the  idea  of  being  a  central  power  to  regulate  not  merely  outward 
practical  measures  for  the  benefit  of  the  American  portion  of  the  Jewish 
people  but  it  has,  since  1855,  when  the  so-called  Cleveland  platform  was 
constructed,  and  ever  since  days  prior  to  1855,  received  the  sense  of  being 
an  institution  by  which  the  religious  opinions  and  the  religious  practices  of 
congregations,  their  members  and  their  officers  shall  be  governed  and  guided. 
A  hasty  glance  upon  the  Cleveland  platform  will  show  that  great  dangers 
were  there  in  an  embryonic  state  in  that  platform.  Furthermore,  do  we  not 
remember  that  at  later  times,  again  and  again,  even  within  the  last  few  years, 
endeavors  have  been  made,  and  the  demand  has  been  accentuated,  to  publish 
a  "  Union  Catechism,"  to  formulate  a  crystallized  creed,  to  bring  about  a  uni- 
formed American  Israel  in  matters  spiritual  and  exclusively  religious,  in 
matters  which  should  forever  be  left  to  the  individual  ? 

It  is  possible,  yea,  it  is  likely,  that  at  present  the  advocates  of  a  formation 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  123 

of  a  synod  for  the  Jews  in  America  have  not  the  remotest  idea  of  thereby 
creating  a  vehicle  for  the  suppression  of  free  thought  and  for  creating  obstacles 
hindering  free  organic  development  of  thoughts  and  endeavors  within  Israel; 
and  yet  in  future  times  the  intended  central  power  may  easily  degenerate  and 
may  become  truly  dangerous.  It  may  enslave  the  minds,  may  cripple  the  free 
mental  activities,  it  may  diminish  or  weaken  the  possibilities  for  sound  and 
true  progress. 

It  is  wise  to  oppose  bad  movements  in  their  very  beginnings.  Principiis 
obsta!  is  a  wise  saying,  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  olden  times.  Kill 
off  bad  propositions  when  they  are  still  in  an  embryonic  state.  After  such 
propositions  have  once  been  adopted,  and  after  they  have  grown  somewhat, 
it  may  be  a  difficult  task  to  kill  them  and  to  exterminate  them  as  they  deserve. 
Therefore,  kill  them  in  the  very  beginning!  Burn  them  in  a  very  heated 
furnace!  Bury  them  deeply  in  a  grave  from  which  there  is  no  resurrection 
for  such  mediaeval  specters!  There  is  death  in  the  pot.  Throw  it  away  as 
far  as  you  can.  Throw  it  away! 

In  the  haste  in  which  these  remarks  have  been  penned,  we  could  impossibly 
enlarge  more  on  the  topic  and  enter  into  a  closer  examination  of  the  ideas 
expressed  in  this  matter  in  the  majority  report.  We  refer,  however,  once 
more  to  the  paper  read  last  Monday  by  one  of  the  signers  of  the  present  re- 
port, namely,  by  Dr.  B.  Felsenthal,  before  the  Central  Conference  in  open 
session. 

Respectfully, 

B.  FELSENTHAL. 

SAMUEL  SALE. 

T.  SCHANFARBER. 


THOUGHTS  CONCERNING  SOME  JEWISH  QUESTIONS  OF  THE 

DAY. 

(Paper  read  before  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis, 
June  27,  1904.) 

By  B.  FELSENTHAL. 

During  the  last  few  years  some  highly  important  questions  have 
been  discussed  amidst  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis, 
among  them  the  questions,  What  is  the  true  theological  aspect  of  our 
Judaism?  What  are  the  essential  dogmas  of  the  same?  Shall  we, 
or  shall  we  not,  distinctly  formulate  these  dogmas,  find  for  them 
clear  and  sharp-cut  words,  and  proclaim  them  before  all  the  world 
as  our  Articles  of  Faith?  Shall  we,  or  shall  we  not,  create  a  Jewish 
Synod,  and  endow  it  with  ecclesiastical  powers,  which  Synod  shall 


124  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

give  an  official  sanction  to  the  dogmas  agreed  upon,  and  which  shall 
have  the  highest  authority  to  promulgate  other  doctrines  whenever 
found  advisable  to  do  so,  and  to  enact  other  laws  binding  for  the 
Jewish  people  under  its  jurisdiction? 

Answers  to  these  questions  have,  been  given  by  eminent  and  in- 
fluential members  of  the  Central  Conference,  which,  if  they  should 
be  concurred  in  by  the  majority,  might  bring  forth  exceedingly  harm- 
ful results,  aye,  destructive  results,  and  which  might  expose  Amer- 
ican Israel  to  the  danger  of  becoming  disrupted. 

Considering  that  these  topics,  lately  brought  forward  for  discus- 
sion and  for  the  purpose  of  taking  action  thereon,  are  of  the  utmost 
importance,  I  hope,  dear  friends  and  colleagues,  that  you  will  not 
regard  it  as  improper,  if  I  now  venture  to  contribute  my  little  mite 
to  this  discussion,  and  I  would  ask  you  to  receive  friendly  the 
paper  which  I  am  going  to  read  before  you  and  to  refer  it  to  the 
proper  committee  with  the  instruction  to  report  on  it  in  the  next 
annual  meeting  of  the  Central  Conference.  • 

Let  me  now  proceed  to  submit  to  you  my  views  of  and  thoughts 
on  the  subject  matter  under  consideration. 

1.  Israel  is  not  merely  what  is  called  "a  church,"  not  merely  a 
religious  denomination  at  the  side  of  other,  non-Israelitic  denomina- 
tions.    It  is  perfectly  unhistoric  and  unscientific  to  assert  that  Israel 
is  "  a  church  "  only.     It  is  a  people  united  by  the  ties  of  racial  affin- 
ity, and  everyone  who  is  a  descendant  of  Jewish  parents  belongs  to 
the  house  of  Israel.     In  other  words,  he  is  a  Jew.     Whether  such 
a  one  is  a  mystic  or  a  rationalist,  a  believer  or  an  infidel,  a  so-called 
Reformer  or  a  so-called  Orthodox ;  whether  he  joins  this  or  that  con- 
gregation or  whether  he  neglects,  or  refuses,  to  join  any  congre- 
gation whatsoever,  he  is  and  he  remains  a  Jew. 

2.  "  Judaism  "  an  abstract  noun  derived  from  the  concrete  noun 
"  Jew  " — denotes,  in  its  narrower  sense,  the  sum  total  of  all  the  relig- 
ious thoughts,  sentiments,  hopes  and  aspirations,  which  the  national 
soul  of  the  Jewish  people  in  the  course  of  its  history  brought  forth, 
and  which  in  the  course  of  the  centuries  were  subject  to  the  laws 
of  evolution  and  underwent  many  gradual  changes.     "  Judaism  " 
furthermore  includes  laws,  institutions,  usages,  etc.,  which  were  pro- 
duced by  the  national  mental  life  of  the  Jews,  or  were  created  by  the 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  125 

necessity  of  existing  conditions,  and  which  also  were,  and  still  are, 
subject  to  the  laws  of  gradual  evolution. 

3.  First  were 'the  Jews,  and  then  came,  as  a  production  by  the 
Jews,  what  is  called  Judaism.     Without  Jews  there  is  no  Judaism ; 
without  a  Jewish  people  there  is  no  Jewish  Church. 

4.  The  Jewish  religion  teaches  certain  thoughts  and  fosters  certain 
sentiments  and  hopes,  which  are  of -a  universal  character,  which  have 
won  already  a  firm   foothold   amongst  the   civilized   nations,   and 
which,  together  wivh  certain   other  thoughts   and  sentiments  and 
hopes,  produced  by  non- Jewish  nations,  will  become  the  common 
property  of  all  mankind.     Shem  and  Japhet  will  build  unitedly  the 
city  of  the  future  whose  name  will  be  Adonai  Shamah,  and  harmon- 
iously working  together  they   will   create  a  new  mankind  which 
will  be  called  Hephzibah.     And  if  we  would  stretch  somewhat  the 
biblical  ethnology  and  would  include  Japan  in  the  Ham  division  of 
mankind,  might  we  not  then  suppose  that  Ham  too  will  come  forward 
with  some  building  material  for  the  new  city,  and  will  furnish  some 
co-workers  in  lifting  up  the  human  race  to  loftier  heights,  to  the 
heights  of  a  new  and  better  mankind  ? 

However  mankind  is,  and  will  forever  remain,  divided  and  sub- 
divided into  various  branches,  into  different  nations.  And  as  their 
languages  will  forever  be  different,  so  the  outward  manifestations  of 
their  religions,  their  festivals,  their  ceremonies,  their  forms  of  wor- 
ship, etc.,  will  forever  remain  different.  And  in  so  far  Judaism  is  a 
national  religion,  and  evidently  it  will  continue  to  be  a  national 
religion,  with  a  specific  national  Jewish  garb,  and  it  ought  to  remain 
one  as  long  as  there  will  be  a  separate  and  distinct  class  of  people 
in  the  world  called  the  Jewish  people,  or  the  Jewish  nation. 

5.  There  are  some  Jews  in  our  present  time  who  deny  the  plain 
fact,  so  clear  to  every  unbiased  and  competent  observer,  that  there 
is  an  Israel  in  the  world  as  an  ethnic  unity,  and  that  an  Israel  really 
exists  as  a  separate  and  distinct  racial  family.*     These  men — it  is, 
indeed  difficult  to  understand  it— think  that  by  their  mere  subtle,  yet 
fallacious  reasoning  they  could  undo  a  divinely  established  fact,  a 

*  A  lucid  and  strictly  scientific  treatment  of  the  subject  by  an  acknowledged 
ethnological  authority  is  to  be  found  in  A.  Reibmayr's  Insucht  und  Racen- 
mischung  beim  Menschen.  Leipzig,  1897. 


126  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

fact  as  clear  as  sunlight,  and  that  by  their  mere  saying  so  they 
could  push  out  of  the  world  a  whole  race  and  speak  of  it  as  not 
existing.  And  some  of  these  men  go  even  so  far  'as  to  say  that,  if 
really  a  distinct  Jewish  people  should  exist,  it  ought  not  remain  any 
longer  standing  aloof  from  other  nations,  it  should  allow  itself  to 
become  disintegrated  and  it  should  disappear  as  such;  in  other 
words,  it  should  become  absorbed  by  the  other  nations  among  whom 
its  members  happen  to  live.  Drawing  the  logical  conclusions  from 
such  premises,  it  will  necessarily  follow  that  in  our  present  times  and 
in  these  United  States  a  separate  Jewish  Church  has  no  reason  to  be, 
and  that,  if  nevertheless  maintained,  it  is  an  anachronism  and  the 
most  superfluous  thing  in  the  world.  Is  it  not  correct  to  say  that  the 
universal  elements  in  Judaism  or,  as  others  call  them,  the  prophetical 
elements  in  Judaism,  as  f.  i.  the  doctrine  of  the  fatherhood  of  God, 
the  brotherhood  of  mankind,  the  sanctity  of  duty,  the  purity  and 
nobility  of  our  life's  conduct,  etc.,  are  now-a-days  also  taught  in 
the  "  liberal  Churches  "  of  the  gentiles,  and  in  thoughtful  books  and 
from  the  professorial  chairs  of  non- Jewish  philosophers  and  teach- 
ers? We  thank  God  for  these  grand  gentile  teachers  and  for  these 
grand  liberal  Churches.  But  we,  conscious  of  our  own  and  separate 
ethnic  situation,  we  maintain  our  separate  religious  position,  our 
"  Jewish  Church,"  as  being  adapted  for  us  of  the  Jewish  nation, 
and  only  for  us  Jews.  We  are  not  antagonistic  towards  other  lib- 
eral and  good  nations  and  religious  denominations.  On  the  con- 
trary. We  acknowledge  in  them  gladly  our  brethren,  and  our  co- 
workers  in  erecting  the  Temple  of  Humanity.  But  we — we  remain 
Jews. 

6.  In  regard  to  the  contemplated  creation  of  a  hierarchical  body 
with  legislative  powers,  which  shall  be  the  highest  authority  in  all 
matters  of  dogmatics  and  of  general  religious  life  among  the  Jews, 
a  firm  and  decided  stand  should  be  taken  by  the  C.  C.  A.  R.,  and  in 
clear  and  unmistakable  words  it  should  declare,  once  for  all,  that  we, 
the  children  of  a  modern  world,  living  at  the  beginning  of  the  twen- 
tieth century,  will  not,  and  never  shall,  accept  a  medieval  system 
of  a  hierarchical  government  for  the  Jewish  people.  In  the  grand 
principle  of  perfect  and  unrestricted  freedom  for  every  individual 
to  do  his  own  thinking  and  to  profess  his  own  convictions,  and  to 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  127 

search  in  his  own  ways  for  learning  what  is  the  truth,  in  this  grand 
principle  we  recognize  one  of  the  highest  and  most  valued  results 
of  the  long  warfare  between  the  powers  of  light  and  the  powers  of 
darkness  ;  between  spiritual  freedom  and  spiritual  thraldom ;  between 
the  dominion  of  an  intelligent,  democratic  individualism  and  the 
dominion  of  an  obscurant,  spirit-killing  clericalism. 

This  being  so,  we  must  say  that,  according  to  our  deepest  con- 
viction, it  is  a  very  sad  and  a  very  deplorable  fact  that  among  an 
association  of  American  Rabbis  who  claim  to  be  the  most  enlight- 
ened, the  most  liberty-loving,  the  most  progressive  teachers  of  Juda- 
ism in  all  the  world,  that  in  the  midst  of  this  association  some  very 
erudite  scholars  and  very  respected  gentlemen  should  have  arisen 
who  are  so  un-American  as  to  advocate  spiritual  slavery  for  Israel 
and  to  plead  for  chaining  free  thought  and  for  curtailing  the  oppor- 
tunities for  unhindered  religious  development.  Indeed,  it  is  a  sorry 
sight  to  see  such  un-American  Americans  who  move  that  we,  modern 
men  with  modern  ideas,  should  help  them  to  resurrect  from  their 
graves  such  gruesome  spectres  of  medieval  times.  A  few  years  ago 
we  thought  it  not  possible  that  among  Jewish- American  freemen  such 
retrogressive,  night-born  attempts  should  be  made  again.  But  alas ! 
we  were  in  error.  Dark  onslaughts  on  freedom  of  thought  are  made, 
and  we  grieve  over  this  fact ;  and  with  us  all  liberty-loving  Jews  in 
Europe  and  in  America,  be  they  orthodox  or  reformed,  feel  sad  on 
account  for  it.  But  let  us  hope,  and  let  us  work  together  unitedly  and 
with  energy,  that  the  powers  of  night  shall  not  prevail  again  in  our 
midst  and  that,  with  God's  help,  no  hierarchical  Synod,  no  popes  and 
no  popelings,  shall  ever  rule  over  us. 

We  protest  likewise  against  all  attempts  of  laying  down  final  dog- 
mas by  an  accidental  majority  in  an  assembly  of  "ordained"  or 
"  non-ordained  "  clergymen,  or  by  a  so-called  Synod  consisting  partly 
of  a  number  of  Jewish  "  clergy  "  and  partly  of  a  number  of  Jewish 
"laymen."  We  acknowledge  as  a  firm  and  self-evident  principle 
that  Israel,  in  consequence  of  a  God-ordained  fact,  is  a  race  united 
by  national  ties ;  further,  that  to  every  member  of  this  race  unre- 
stricted freedom  is  to  be  granted  and  the  indisputable  right  is  to  be 
accorded  to  have  and  to  hold  his  own  theological  views  and  to  shape 
his  own  ceremonial  conduct  in  a  wise  it  seems  best  and  appears  honest 


128  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

to  him.  No  one,  be  he  an  orthodox  fanatic  or  a  reform  fanatic,  shall 
have  the  power  and  authority — or  shall  we  say,  the  impudence  ? — to 
arrogate  to  himself  the  right  of  commanding  me,  or  you,  what  we 
must  believe,  or  what,  in  Church  matters,  we  must  do  or  not  do.  As 
long  as  anyone  of  us,  by  having  and  holding  our  own  theological 
views  and  by  following  our  own  honest  ways  and  convictions  regard- 
ing precepts  of  "  the  Church,"  is  not  encroaching  upon  the  rights  of 
his  fellow-Israelites,  and  is  not  curtailing  their  freedom  of  religious 
thinking  and  religious  manner  of  living,  so  long  we  must  not  be 
disturbed  and  interfered  with  by  anyone.  Within  Israel,  to  a  so-called 
Orthodox  the  same  rights  and  privileges  must  be  accorded  as  to  a 
so-called  Reformer,  to  the  mystic  Kabbalist  or  the  neo-Chasidaic  dis- 
senter the  same  rights  must  be  granted  which  are  possessed  by  the 
talmudic  Mithnagged  or  by  the  Jewish  American  opponent  of  the 
Talmud  and  the  Shul-chan  Arukh.  Freedom  for  all !  Toleration  for 
all !  Yes,  toleration  for  all,  except  for  the  intolerant  ones.  This  is 
what  we  demand,  and  upon  this  we  shall  insist.  Not  a  one-headed 
pope  do  we  want,  nor  a  many-headed  pope !  And  no  schism  within 
Israel  must  be  brought  about.  United  we  are,  united  we  will  remain, 
and  united  we  will  step  forward  into  the  future,  -jio  uopTil  WTW3 

A  Synod?  A  hierarchical  government?  There  is  not  the  least 
necessity  for  such  an  institution.  We  thank  for  it.  In  the  words 
of  Heine  (in  his  "  Deutschland,  ein  Wintermahrchen  ")  :  "  Bedenk 
ich  die  Sache  ganz  genau,  So  brauchen  wir  gar  keinen  Kaiser" — 
or,  with  changing  the  last  word  in  this  quotation :  If  I  consider  the 
matter  more  closely,  I  must  conclude  that  we  need  neither  a  Synod, 
nor  a  formulated  binding,  crystallized  Creed. 

No,  we  need  not  a  Synod,  or  an  Ecumenical  Council,  or  a  Pro- 
vincial Council,  or  any  other  hierarchical  power  above  us  to  regulate 
our  theological  thinking,  or  to  rule  in  our  ecclesiastical  domain. 
United  we  are  without  such  anachronistic  and  antiliberal  institu- 
tions,— we  are  united  by  the  Creator  himself  who  has  put  us  into 
the  world  as  a  separate  people  and  has  made  us  as  of  one  family. 
Within  this  people,  or  within  this  family,  or  by  whatever  other  name 
you  may  call  Israel,  the  inner  life  must  never  be  gagged,  never  be 
hindered  in  its  free,  organic  development.  Harmony,  mutual  under- 
standing, sound  progress  will  come  nevertheless.  This  Central  Con- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  129 

ference  which  thus  far  has  been  only  a  deliberative  body  and  which 
thus  far  did  not  possess  any  legislative  cr  administrative  powers,  is 
sufficient  proof  of  this.  Did  it  lack  in  eff ectiveness  ?  Did  it,  as  a 
mere  Conference,  as  a  mere  deliberative  body  corporate,  not  have 
deep  and  wide  influence  upon  American  Judaism?  Has  it  not  suc- 
ceeded in  achieving  unity  of  ritual  in  a  very  large  number  of  Jewish 
Congregations  ?  And  is  it  not  clear  that  in  the  course  of  a  few  more 
years  the  Union  Prayer  Book  will  be  adopted  by  still  more  congre- 
gations in  the  east  and  the  west  ?  Was  any  Synod  required  to  bring 
this  about?  We  might  refer  to  other  points,  where  the  debates  and 
resolutions  of  the  Conference  have  brought  forth  practical  results. 
Whether  these  results  are  in  every  instance  good  ones,  or  not,  this 
is  not  to  be  discussed  here.  It  is  enough  that  we  show  here  that 
a  solely  deliberating  Conference  is  fully  sufficient  to  achieve  great 
visible  results.  The  people  grant  willingly  religious  leadership  to 
such  a  Conference.  And  why?  Because  the  people  see  or  believe 
that  in  the  Conference  greater  learning  and  sounder  expert  knowl- 
edge is  to  be  found  than  among  the  outsiders,  the  masses  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  further,  that  wisdom  of  a  high  degree  and  piety  of  a  true  kind 
guide  the  members,  and  that,  foremost  of  all,  unselfishness  and 
altruistic  devotedness  to  sacred  causes  and  to  high  ideals  are  prevail- 
ing among  the  eminent  men  who  constitute  the  Conference.  Let  me 
add  that,  in  my  opinion,  this  Conference  has  been  constructive  and 
is  therefore  deserving  praise  in  so  far  as  its  majority  until  now  have 
withstood  destructive  attempts  and  have  constantly  been  in  favor  of 
strengthening  and  fortifying  the  oneness  of  Israel  in  matters  truly 
essential,  in  matters  by  which  this  oneness  is  manifested  before  the 
world. 

As  to  a  formulated  Creed,  is  there  really  a  pressing  necessity  for 
having  one  ?  Must  we  have  one  ?  What  for  ?  Many  kinds  of  flow- 
ers bloom  in  God's  garden,  and  many  kinds  of  trees  grow  in  God's 
orchard.  The  best  way  is,  to  leave  metaphysics,  speculative  theo- 
logy, dogmatics,  and  the  like,  to  the  individual  philosophers  and 
would-be  philosophers,  to  the  theologians,  to  men  whose  mental 
proclivities  run  that  way.  The  great  majority  of  the  people,  as  we 
can  easily  notice  every  day,  concern  themselves  very  little  with  such 
speculations  lying  beyond  their  horizon.  There  is,  we  admit,  here 


130  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

and  there  someone  to  be  found  who  has  a  natural  liking  for  such 
"  graue  Theorieen  "  ;  there  is  here  and  there  "  ein  Kerl,  der  speculirt." 
And  why  not?  ffEs  muss  auch  solche  K'duze  geben."  Let  them 
write  to  their  hearts'  content  "  philosophical  "  essays  and  metaphysi- 
cal books ;  let  them,  if  they  are  inclined  to  do  so,  publish  Catechisms 
and  teach  therein  their  Creeds,  their  Articles  of  Faith ;  let  them  enter 
into  the  Pardes  of  the  theological  speculations,  as  the  four  Tannaim 
did,  but  out  of  which  Pardes  only  Rabbi  Akiba  returned  unhurt,  and 
let  them  write  books  about  what  they  saw  in  that  Pardes,  if  their 
mind  impels  them  to  do  it.  But  upon  this  we  insist:  Do  not  force 
your  Catechisms,  your  philosophies,  your  Creeds  upon  others,  un- 
willing to  accept  them,  and  do  not  ask  a  Synod,  or  a  similar  hier- 
archical body,  to  stamp  them  officially  as  the  only  true  and  correct 
ones.  Concede  to  the  others  the  right  either  to  accept  or  to  reject 
them,  or,  if  they  prefer  to  do  so,  to -ignore  them  entirely.  Let  no 
such  body  be  so  conceited,  or  so  arrogant  and  impudent,  to"  claim  for 
themselves  ecclesiastical  powers  and  to  say  to  others,  "  You  must  ac- 
cept these  dogmas,  you  must  teach  this  Catechism,  you  must  preach 
these  doctrines,  you  must  believe  these  articles,  and  so  forth,  which 
we,  the  infallible  saints  of  the  holy  Synod,  proclaim  as  the  only 
correct  ones ;  if  not,  you  will  be  heretics,"  etc. 

7.  Even  as  it  exists  now,  the  C.  C.  A.  R.  should  disclaim  for  itself 
in  words  clear  and  loud,  and  in  a  manner  which  cannot  be  misunder- 
stood and  cannot  be  misconstrued,  all  desires  for  legislative  preroga- 
tives, it  should  say  before  all  American  Israel  that  it  has  no  priest- 
craft's authority,  and  that  nothing  is  farther  from  the  Conference  than 
the  thought  of  assuming  such  an  authority.  It  should  furthermore 
proceed  and  explicitly  say  that  it  does  not  claim  authority  even  over 
the  minority  of  its  own  members  who  conscientiously  vote  "  No ! " 
when  a  motion  of  a  general  character  is  pending  and  is  being  voted 
upon,  and  that  only  in  regard  to  such  resolutions  which  concern  the 
C.  C.  A.  R.  as  a  body  corporate,  as  f.  i.  resolutions  concerning  time, 
place,  and  manner  of  the  meetings,  election  of  officers,  printing  of  the 
minutes,  and  other  similar  matters,  the  minority  has  to  abide  by  the 
resolutions  passed  by  the  majority.  Aside  from  this,  a  member  of 
the  minority  has  the  same  unrestricted  freedom  of  thinking  and  act- 
ing as  any  other  Israelite  has,  who  is  not  officially  connected  with 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  131 

the  Conference.  He  may  pursue  his  own  ways  in  matters  of  dogma 
and  ceremonial  practices  which  he  considers  right  and  proper,  or  he 
may  follow  such  teachers  whom  he  personally  acknowledges  to  be 
his  masters  and  who  are  considered  by  him  as  authorities,  to  whom  in 
his  own  free  will  he  submits.  In  ritual  matters,  to  every  congregation 
also  the  right  must  explicitly  be  accorded  to  act  independently  of 
the  dictates  of  any  Conference  or  Synod  or  any  other  similar  would- 
be  hierarchical  power.  Coercive  measures  in  religious  matters  must 
forever  remain  things  foreign  and  must  forever  be  considered  as  un- 
Jewish  within  our  midst.  The  only  allowable  means  to  propagate 
among  the  people  such  views  in  religious  matters  which  we  consider 
better,  and  to  bring  forth  more  warmth  and  enthusiasm  for  and  ad- 
herence to  really  good  religious  usages  in  general  and  to  the  Syn- 
agogue especially,  are  the  words  of  instruction  and  the  good  ex- 
ample set  by  our  conduct  and  by  our  unselfish  labors  in  behalf  of  the 
Good  and  the  True,  especially  in  behalf  of  a  united  Israel.  We,  the 
Rabbis,  are  teachers  in  Israel,  nothing  else,  and  we  decidedly  refuse 
to  subscribe  to  the  doctrine  that  a  Rabbi  belongs  to  a  clergy  who 
as  such  have  powers  and  privileges  which  a  non-Rabbi  has  not. 

In  conclusion  I  would  once  more  refer  to  the  onslaughts  upon  Is- 
rael's great  treasure,  viz.  :  the  freedom  of  research  and  the  liberty 
of  thought,  which  onslaughts  are  made  by  the  attempts  to  formulate 
a  final  Creed  and  to  establish  a  Synod,  and  I  would  say  to  this  Asso- 
ciation : 


ns  ,-jEnn  n&o  ni«n  n«  ,nnarn  n&o  mTnn  n«  ovn  "pa?  Tiro  run 
inwrai  nixzn  ,D"m  mmi;  »jnnn  nion  n 


MAX  HELLER,  1904. 

Do  we  need  a  Synod  ? 

Would  a  Synod  be  helpful  to  American  Judaism  ? 

The  answer  to  these  questions  will  depend  largely,  if  not  alto- 
gether, upon  what  we  mean  by  a  Synod.  If  a  Synod  is  to  be  an 
ecclesiastical  council,  substitute  for  an  infallible  Pope,  if  it  is  to  be 
a  body  clothed  with  absolute  authority  to  fix  a  creed  and  to  pre- 
scribe religious  statutes  ;  if  it  is  to  decide  who  is  and  who  is  not  to 
be  considered  a  Jew  ;  if  it  is  to  have  power  to  prosecute  heretics  and 
to  excommunicate,  then  we  are  all  agreed  to  a  man  that  we  need  and 


132  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

want  no  such  Synod.  Jewish  temperament  and  American  atmos- 
phere are  alike  intolerant  of  any  such  institution.  The  Christian 
denominations  that  attempt  to  enforce  ecclesiastical  discipline  in  mat- 
ters of  belief  are  only  injuring  themselves  in  the  eyes  of  the  public 
and  losing  hold  upon  their  followers ;  while  in  Judaism  even  the 
darkest  orthodoxy  Russia  must  beware  against  employing  coercion 
and  insisting  upon  its  authority. 

It  is  raising  the  merest  bugaboo  to  warn  against  hierarchy,  spirit- 
ual slavery  and  sect-division,  when  the  establishment  of  a  Synod  is 
proposed.  Those  who  sound  this  warning  misread  altogether  both 
the  natural  disposition  of  the  American  Jew  and  the  unalterable  con- 
ditions under  which  we  live  in  this  Western  civilization.  They 
should  give  due  weight  to  the  indisputable  fact  that  there  is  not  the 
remotest  danger  that  the  American  Jew  would  ever  tolerate  the  im- 
position of  spiritual  slavery.  All  over  the  occidental  world,  wher- 
ever spiritual  authority  is  in  the  least  organized  among  Jews,  we  find 
the  authority  assailed  on  all  sides,  eking  out  a  precarious  existence ; 
the  menace  to  our  faith,  a  menace  that  threatens  from  Jewish  inde- 
pendence as  well  as  from  the  spiritual  currents  of  the  age,  is  the 
menace  of  individualism. 

We  need  a  Synod,  if  by  Synod  we  mean  not  an  ecclesiastic  council, 
but  a  representative  religious  body  that  commands  universal  confi- 
dence by  the  weight  of  its  wisdom  and  learning.  We  need  a  Synod 
not  for  the  purpose  of  excommunicating  Jews,  but  for  communicating 
Judaism,  not  to  split  up  into  sects,  but  to  crystallize  scholarship  and 
practical  wisdom  into  something  that  shall  guide  the  people. 

Through  the  labors  mostly  of  one  man,  our  immortal  Dr.  Wise, 
the  reform  wing  of  American  Judaism  has  attained  to  a  measure  of 
cooperation  in  its  congregational  union,  its  college  and  its  confer- 
ence. Out  of  this  conference,  largely  again  through  the  self-sacrifice 
of  Dr.  Wise  who  gave  up  his  own  Minhag  America,  there  grew  a 
certain  measure  of  ritual  uniformity  in  the  almost  universal  adoption 
of  the  union  prayer-book.  This  was  the  very  first  step  from  mere 
cooperation  towards  uniformity ;  the  splitting  up  into  innumerable 
private  rituals  had  been  the  most  absurd  and  burdensome  outgrowth 
of  rampant  individualism  which  had,  often,  degenerated  into  the 
merest  egoism.  Here  the  American  rabbi  had  to  learn  first  to  give 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  133 

up  that  indulgence  of  idiosyncracy  which  means  not  freedom,  but 
disintegration. 

In  the  last  years  of  Dr.  Wise's  long  career  it  was  his  favorite 
dream  to  call  a  Synod  and  to  formulate  a  creed.  Being  in  touch 
with  the  people  he  felt  that  the  excessive  individualism  of  our  pulpit 
and  press  had  a  confusing  effect ;  he  knew  that  the  conference  was 
too  young  a  body,  too  liberal  in  its  rules  of  membership  to  command, 
with  the  people  in  general,  the  necessary  weight  for  its  declarations. 
He  appreciated  the  fact  that  among  the  people  there  is  a  desire  for 
clearer  and  more  definite  teaching,  that  Judaism  is  weakened  by  the 
endless  disagreements  between  those  who  are  to  teach  it.  He  wished 
to  place  before  the  people  an  aggregate  of  truths  and  precepts,  clearly 
formulated  which  shall  have  the  endorsement  of  a  representative, 
widely  trusted,  body. 

It  is  easy  enough  to  say  that  our  Central  Conference  essentially 
fulfills  these  requirements.  We  may  readily  grant  that  the  Confer- 
ence is  a  gathering  of  capable  men,  of  earnest  workers ;  we  may  flat- 
ter ourselves  that,  as  it  pursues  its  steady  way,  it  is  growing  in  the 
esteem  of  the  people,  that  its  discussions  and  pronouncements  are 
read  more  widely  and  regarded  more  highly  year  after  year ;  yet  it  is 
beyond  doubt  that  some  men  of  the  highest  standing  in  the  reform 
pulpit  remain  away  from  its  deliberations  and  that  a  large  portion 
of  our  press  presumes  to  speak  disdainfully  of  its  work  and  standing. 
The  motives  for  both  attitudes  we  need  not  now  investigate ;  the  fact 
is  sufficiently  telling  that  such  conduct  should  escape  universal 
censure. 

We  need  a  Synod  to  put  some  sort  of  a  stop  to  the  prevailing 
anarchy.  That  every  man  should  be  doing  what  is  right  in  his  own 
eyes  is  a  state  of  affairs  which  must  be  reprehensible  in  a  faith  that 
has  a  past,  no  matter  how  ideal  a  condition  of  things  it  may  appear 
to  those  who  believe  in  unhindered  self-development  as  the  highest 
law.  An  American  Jewish  Synod  will  and  can  never  degenerate 
into  an  instrument  of  hierarchy;  it  will  be  a  deliberative  body  like 
the  conference ;  its  authority  will  be  one  of  confidence  and  personal 
weight ;  consisting  of  rabbis  and  non-rabbis  it  will  deal  with  practi- 
cal questions  in  a  courageous,  sober  spirit;  convened  at  long  inter- 
vals it  will  deal  only  with  momentous  questions  such  as  will  be  laid 


134  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

before  it  by  the  vote  of  Jewish  organizations ;  it  will  have  ample 
time  and  unlimited  resources  for  delivering  opinions  that  shall  com- 
mand universal  respect. 

The  details  of  the  plan  will,  no  doubt,  be  worked  out  in  due  time 
so  as  to  ensure  the  formation  of  a  body  of  the  highest  standing  and 
efficiency ;  when  it  will  once  be  understood  that  there  is  no  intention 
to  coerce  or  discipline,  to  create  hierarchical  authority  or  ecclesiasti- 
cal power,  the  present  opposition  will  melt  away,  being  founded  upon 
apprehensions  which  are  opposed  to  every  probability. 

[American  Israelite,  Aug.   18,  1904.] 

VIEWS  OF  PRESIDENT  SCHECHTER  OF  THE  JEWISH 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  OF  AMERICA. 

EDITOR  ISRAELITE: 

Sir: — In  reply  to  your  kind  invitation  to  give  my  opinion  on  the 
advisability  of  calling  a  Synod  composed  of  rabbis  and  lay  members 
for  the  purposes  of  discussing  and  deciding  certain  religious  problems 
in  need  of  solution,  I  beg  to  state  that  this  question  was  put  to  me 
some  ten  years  ago  by  the  editor  of  the  American  Hebrew.  My 
answer  then  was,  that,  far  from  being  helpful  in  any  way  to  the  cause 
of  Judaism,  such  a  Synod  is  bound  to  prove  harmful  and  mischievous. 

I  do  not  remember  the  exact  wording  of  my  answer,  but  I  have  a 
clear  recollection  that  my  negative  attitude  was  dictated  by  the  dread 
of  every  movement  calculated  to  foster  or  to  encourage  hierarchical 
pretensions  and  sacerdotal  tendencies  among  us — a  dread  which  I 
have  felt  from  my  earliest  youth. 

I  frankly  confess  that  this  dread  was  hardly  justified  in  that  part 
of  the  Dispersion  where  my  early  youth  was  spent.  Religious  in- 
struction there  was  general  and  greatly  aided  by  the  religious  life  at 
home.  I  scarcely  remember  a  case  of  a  Jew  in  the  community  who 
was  not  able  to  read  his  prayers  in  Hebrew,  or  utter  the  Benediction 
when  called  up  to  the  Law,  or  perform  the  Service  at  the  Table  on 
Passover  Eve.  A  strong  minority  could  and  did  read  the  Bible  in  the 
original ;  at  least  the  Pentateuch,  the  Psalms,  and  those  lessons  from 
the  Prophets  which  were  read  as  Haftarah;  these  men  were  even 
familiar  with  the  lighter  portions  of  the  Talmud ;  whilst  almost  every 
Jewish  community  could  boast  of  a  goodly  number  of  private  stu- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  135 

dents  holding  their  diploma  as  rabbis,  though  they  did  not  choose 
to  make  of  their  Torah  "  a  spade  to  dig  with."  Since  almost  all  of 
those  over  whose  spiritual  councils  he  presided  had  more  or  less 
share  in  the  knowledge  of  the  Torah,  from  which  source  his  authority 
emanated,  the  rabbi  was  only  a  primus  inter  pares,  and  he  realized 
that  the  difference  between  him  and  his  flock  was  merely  a  matter  of 
quantity  and-  not  of  quality.  Any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  rabbi 
to  minimize  the  importance  of  the  Torah  as  the  source  of  his  author- 
ity, or  to  play  the  role  of  lawgiver  instead  of  law-interpreter  would 
have  been  resented  as  rank  treason  and  fought  to  the  bitter  end.  In 
fact,  I  do  not  remember  a  single  instance  of  such  usurpation.  My 
fears  of  priestly  arrogation  of  authority,  I  judge  now,  must  have  been 
the  outcome  of  what  I  had  read  and  heard  of  other  denominations, 
rather  than  of  anything  for  which  the  regular  rabbi  in  the  eastern 
parts  of  Europe  could  fairly  have  been  made  responsible. 

But  this  early  dread,  whatever  the  cause  may  bave  been,  was  cer- 
tainly not  removed  by  my  later  contact  with  the  religious  life  in  the 
civilized  West,  where  ignorance  of  the  Hebrew  language  and  indif- 
ference nullified  all  historical  safeguard  over  the  rabbi,  where  loyalty 
to  the  Torah  was  largely  replaced  by  devotion  to  the  pet  orator,  where 
rabbis  were  actually  "  ordaining  disciples "  instead  of  examining 
pupils,  where  rabbis  made  invocation  and  imparted  the  priestly  bless- 
ing with  the  most  approved  pontifical  manner  and  mien,  and  where, 
lastly,  rabbis,  lacking  in  all  sense  of  humor  and  in  all  sense  of  propor- 
tion, were  talking  of  themselves  as  prophets  and  seers,  only,  of 
course,  more  advanced  and  more  "  evolutionized  "  than  Isaiah  and 
Micah. 

It  is  evident  under  these  conditions — which  must  grow  worse  with 
the  disappearance  of  those  immigrants  who  still  cherish  reminis- 
cences of  an  early  contact  with  a  vigorous  and  active  Jewish  life 
during  their  youth  in  the  old  countries — that  the  possibility  of  there 
developing  among  us  a  regular  ecclesiastical  body  with  all  the  cus- 
tomary hierarchical  arrogance  and  sacerdotal  pretensions  is  much 
greater  than  it  ever  was  at  any  period  since  the  synagogue  became  a 
recognized  institution  in  Judaism.  Not  the  white  necktie,  nor  the 
clerical  waistcoat  makes  the  presumptuous  priest ;  much  as  one  may 
ridicule  these  paraphernalia  and  "  aids  to  dignity."  That  which 


136  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

propagates  and  develops  sacerdotalism  is  the  consciousness  of  the 
rabbi  that  he  is  the  sole  and  last  authority  in  matters  spiritual.  To 
possess  the  power  of  abrogating  doctrine,  of  ignoring  Scriptures,  of 
relegating  liturgies  to  the  lumber-room,  of  playing  at  will  with  the 
festival  calendar,  of  abolishing  ceremonies  and  observances  and 
bidding  defiance  to  all  precedent  and  custom,  means  to  wield  a  greater 
authority  than  any  Pope  has  ever  enjoyed,  and  means  to  be  surer  of 
one's  own  infallibility  than  any  church  ever  claimed  for  its  head. 
And  I  have  enough  experience  to  know  that  our  modern  divines 
are  not  less  dogmatic  than  the  old  hierarchy,  not  less  jealous  of  their 
glory,  not  less  exacting  in  obedience,  not  less  fanatical  and  not  less 
ready  to  stigmatize  their  opponents  as  atheists  and  sceptics. 

Thus,  I  am  fully  alive  to  the  danger  which  may  grow  out  of  such 
a  Synod,  and  entirely  share  the  fears  expressed  in  Dr.  Felsenthal's 
admirable  article,  though  our  point  of  view  is  not  always  the  same. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  plea  for  the  creation  of  such  a  legis- 
lative body  on  the  ground  that  individualism  has  run  riot,  or,  as 
others  expressed  it,  that  we  are  now  in  a  state  of  spiritual  anarchy. 
I  am  not  blind  to  these  dangers.  Holding  the  views  for  which  I 
am  known  to  stand,  it  would  not  become  me  to  enter  into  details 
upon  this  point.  Probably  much  that  I  would  describe  as  anarchy 
and  lawlessness  would  be  defined  by  others  as  a  mark  of  vigorous 
life  and  progress.  Sufficient  to  state,  that  the  uneasy  feeling  that 
we  are  in  a  condition  of  anarchy  is  not  confined  to  one  party ;  we  are 
all  agreed  the  evil  is  there,  whatever  its  exact  nature  and  various 
manifestations.  The  creation  of  a  Synod  bound  in  some  way  to 
exercise  a  controlling  influence  upon  the  whim  and  caprice  of  the 
individual  would,  so  it  is  thought,  prove  the  best  means  to  counteract 
the  evil.  Much,  however,  as  I  realize  the  danger  and  sympathize 
with  those  who  are  endeavoring  to  meet  it,  I  am  hardly  able  to  sup- 
press the  great  fear  that  the  remedy  may  prove  worse  than  the  evil. 
Anarchy  as  a  negative  quality  is  devoid  of  substance  and  reality. 
It  is  its  own  worst  enemy  and  ends  in  over- throwing  itself.  But  the 
evils  of  a  Synod  may  be  lasting,  defying  all  remedy.  The  evil  I  am 
thinking  of  is  that  of  a  permanent  schism  in  the  congregation  of 
Israel.  I  must  explain  myself  more  clearly. 

In  the  "  Year  Book  for  1904  of  the  Central  Conference  of  Ameri- 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  137 

can  Rabbis,"  there  is  a  quotation  from  an  address  of  the  late  Dr. 
Isaac  M.  Wise,  from  which  we  learn  that  in  his  creation  of  the  Con- 
ference of  Rabbis  and  Congregational  Delegates,  which  he  apparently 
wished  to  develop  into  a  regular  Synod,  he  was  "  actuated  by  the 
earnest  desire  to  preserve  the  union  of  Israel  and  its  religion  by  mu- 
tual understanding  and  union."     The  impression  conveyed  by  this 
passage,  though  he  only  addressed  himself  to  the  American  congre- 
gations, is  that  he  had  the  union  of  Israel  at  large  at  heart  and 
wished  to  preserve  and  to  perpetuate  it.     His  reference,  in  the  same 
quotation,  again  to  the  Bible,  Talmud  and  history,  by  which  he  en- 
deavors to  prove  the  legality  and  usefulness  of  Synods,  impresses  one 
that  it  was  these  Books  considered  sacred  by  the  whole  of  Israel 
which  he  looked  upon  as  authorities  in  matters  of  religion.     I  have 
not  the  least  desire  to  foist  orthodox  views  on  the  late  Dr.  Wise. 
The  disciples  of  Dr.  Wise  and  his  contemporaries  who  were  in  per- 
sonal touch  with  him  certainly  have  a  better  right  to  interpret  the 
views  of  the  former  President  of  the  Hebrew  Union  College.     Im- 
pressions, indeed,  are  vague,  and  I  may  be  wrong  in  my  deductions, 
but  my  impressions  gain  somewhat  in  strength  by  another  quotation 
from  Dr.  Wise,  in  which  he  speaks  with  apparent  disapproval  of 
"  the  others,  reforming  head  over  heels,  break  with  the  history  of  our 
people."    He  evidently  desired  to  avoid  this  break.  But  it  is  just  this 
break,  which  such  a  Synod  as  at  present  proposed,  might  bring  about. 
I  know  that  there  are  many  among  our  leading  rabbis  who  are  of 
the  same  opinion  as  their  master.     I  myself  have  the  honor  of  having 
friends  among  those  rabbis  who  are  in   favor  of  a  Synod,  who 
are  just  as  anxious  to  preserve  the  unity  of  Israel  and  perpetuate 
the  continuity  of  our  history  and  tradition,  as  ever  any  rabbi  in  Israel 
was ;  but  even  this  knowledge  does  not  dissipate  my  fears.     I  hope  it 
will  not  be  considered  invidious  on  my  part  if  I  maintain  that  the 
spirit  with  which  the  creation  of  a  Synod  is  approached,  does  not 
augur  well  for  unity  and  preservation.     At  least,  this  is  the  impres- 
sion which  I  have  received  from  the  lengthy  report  introducing  the 
subject  of  the  Synod.     Therein  we  meet  with  such  expressions  as 
the  "  superstitious  sanctification  of  lifeless  ceremonies  and  exploded 
creeds."     It  is  further  assumed  that  "  orthodoxy  is  guided  by  senti- 
mental, unreasoning  respect  for  things  as  they  are,  and  in  its  historic 


138  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

valuations  exercises  a  certain  arbitrariness  of  judgment."  Again,  it 
is  maintained  that  "  Israel  is  a  Church  in  the  broad  sense  of  the  term  ; 
in  the  sense  that  was  uppermost  in  Ezra's  mind  after  the  return." 
This  is  only  a  paraphrase  of  the  well-known  apercu  of  Wellhausen, 
who  maintained,  "  It  was  not  the  nation  that  returned  from  exile,  but 
a  religious  sect."  This  platitude  is  repeated  by  all  the  Bible  critics 
ad  nauseam,  as  it  naturally  fits  into  their  whole  system,  which  en- 
deavors to  prove  that  the  practice  of  the  Law  was  incompatible  with 
the  life  of  a  civilized  community,  and  that  an  unbridged  gulf  yawned 
between  pre-exilic  Israel  and  post-exilic  Judaism.  Every  student 
of  Jewish  literature,  especially  of  the  Halacha,  where,  we  meet  more 
with  the  daily  and  the  practical  life  of  the  nation,  with  its  traits,  its 
games,  its  artisans,  its  peasants  and  merchants,  its  days  of  mourning 
and  days  of  joy,  its  public  dances,  knows  that  this  assertion  is  an 
absolute  falsehood.  Franz  Delitzsch,  who  knew  more  about  post- 
Canonical  literature  than  his  son,  Frederick  Delitzsch,  knows  about 
the  Bible,  exclaims :  "  Why  should  the  post-Exile  people  be  counted 
a  sect?  Unity  of  religion,  common  religious  worship,  and  a  central 
sanctuary  are  surely  not  things  which  rob  people  of  national 
character." 

I  have  neither  the  time  nor  the  inclination  to  enter  upon  a  contro- 
versy, though  I  should  think  that  one  ought  to  be  a  little  more  re- 
served in  his  denunciations,  considering  the  fact  that  the  great  major- 
ity of  the  best  Jewish  thinkers,  the  most  learned  Jewish  scholars,  the 
most  able  Jewish  historians,  men  renowned  for  their  critical  acumen 
and  sound  judgment,  did  not  belong  to  the  radical  section  of  the 
community.  It  may,  in  passing,  be  remarked  that  Frankel,  Jacob 
Bernays,  and  Sachs  were  the  best  Hellenistic  scholars  among  the 
Jewish  rabbis  of  the  last  century,  but  at  the  same  time  they  were 
the  most  staunchly  conservative  of  their  generation.  The  knowledge 
of  Hellenism  does  not  lead  to  the  results  which  the  "  Occidental 
man  "  is  so  fond  of  parading.  Nor  would,  indeed,  such  a  controversy 
be  in  any  way  profitable.  When  all  Jewish  opinion  is  practically  set  at 
naught,  and  Wellhausen  is  thought  to  have  spoken  the  last  word  on 
the  Bible  and  the  history  of  Israel,  and  Spencer  the  last  word  on 
philosophy,  we  have  no  longer  a  common  platform  to  make  mutual 
understanding  possible.  All  I  wish  to  urge  is  that  there  is  a  strong 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  139 

bias  among  some  of  us  to  approach  Jewish  problems  in  a  spirit  alien 
to  Judaism  and  on  assumptions  or  views  largely  based  on  non-Jewish 
opinion.  A  Synod  in  which  such  a  spirit  would  be  prevalent  is 
bound  to  dissociate  us  from  the  large  bulk  of  Israel,  which  looks  for 
the  interpretation  of  its  Scriptures  and  its  history  to  Jewish  opinion, 
and  recognizes  in  the  propagation  of  the  views  of  certajn  schools  the 
revival  of  ancient  hostile  sects  in  deadly  feud  with  the  Jewish  nation 
and  the  Jewish  religion.  To  those  who  are  desirous  of  more  infor- 
mation on  this  point  I  would  recommend  the  study  of  Diestel, 
11  Geschichte  des  Alten  Testaments  in  der  Christlichen  Kirche." 
They  will  learn  there  how  the  attacks  made  by  the  church  upon  the 
Old  Testament  now  repeat  themselves  in  the  synagogue.  Perhaps 
they  will  see,  too,  that  the  fathers  of  the  church  were  more  reveren- 
tial in  their  language,  and  mofe  hesitating  in  their  abrogation  of  the 
law,  than  many  a  Jewish  theologian  of  to-day. 

It  is  true  many  of  these  separatist  views  are  preached  and  taught  in 
many  a  pulpit,  but  we  are  not  yet  always  taken  seriously  by  the  rest 
of  Israel,  nor  by  the  world  at  large.  Our  theological  pronounce- 
ments are  considered  as  mere  excesses  of  a  young  community 
in  which  theological  opinion  is  still  in  an  unripe  and  in  a  transi- 
tory condition.  They  belong  to  the  "  chapter  of  accidents,"  inevi- 
table in  a  country  like  America.  People  shake  their  heads  but 
make  allowance  for  the  pioneer  with  his  unrest,  his  constant  rush, 
and  his  nervous  condition,  knowing  all  the  time  that  none  is  more 
anxious  for  an  orderly  settled  life  than  this  pioneer  himself.  Like- 
wise, it  is  hoped  that,  with  the  increase  of  knowledge  and  the 
establishment  of  more  Jewish  communities  and  the  leisure  attendant 
upon  a  properly  settled  life  which  allows  man  to  meditate  upon  his 
past,  and  provide  for  his  spiritual  future,  Judaism  will  come  to  its 
rights,  and  tradition  and  historical  institutions  will  become  the  same 
factors  in  religion  as  they  are  now  becoming  in  other  departments  of 
life.  But  when  much  that  is  now  considered  the  mere  crudities  of 
youth  will  have  been  refined  into  opinion  and  will  have  received  the 
sanction  of  a  regular  Synod,  the  face  of  the  matter  will  wear  a  new 
look.  Then  the  schism  is  sure  to  come,  and  we  shall  be  cut  off  from 
the  universal  synagogue.  To  illustrate  my  opinion,  suppose  the 
Synod  decides  that  Judaism  is  a  church,  not  a  nation.  Let  us  further 


140  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

suppose,  for  argument's  sake,  that  the  inference  drawn  from  the  de- 
cision will  be  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  church  to  substitute  the 
Sunday  for  the  Sabbath,  which  latter  day  is  inconvenient,  and  to 
invent  some  new  mode  of  initiation,  taking  the  place  of  the  rite  of  the 
Covenant  of  Abraham,  which  has  so  often  been  denounced  as  bar- 
baric. Suppose,  further,  that  the  church,  after  the  necessary  self- 
clarification  and  crystallization  of  ideas  will  arrive  at  the  conclusion 
that  it  is  time  to  give  Jesus,  who  is  declared  from  many  a  pulpit  as 
one  of  our  greatest  prophets  and  martyrs,  his  proper  recognition, 
and  to  introduce  parts  of  the  New  Testament — say,  the  Lord's 
Prayer  and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount — into  our  liturgy  and  our 
Scriptures.  Suppose,  further,  that  for  the  purpose  of  propagating 
and  developing  the  universalistic  mission  of  the  church,  intermar- 
riage with  non-Jews  will  be  declared  not  only  sanctioned,  but  desir- 
able and  worthy  of  being  promoted.  All  these  views  have  been 
mooted,  and  may  appear  and  reappear.  I  am  certain  that  at  present 
such  a  program  will  meet  with  stern  resistance ;  but  men  pass  away 
while  Synods  remain.  I  know  further  how  majorities  are  swayed 
by  the  specious  arguments  of  plausible  and  high-sounding  rhetoric, 
and  these  arguments  gather  strength  when  they  are  supported  by  the 
considerations  of  comfort  and  convenience.  In  this  wise  such  a 
program  might  some  day  be  set  up  as  the  sanctioned,  canonical  test 
of  affiliation  with  the  church.  And  let  me  say  that  we  shall  be  the 
sufferers.  I  am  free  to  confess  that  I  personally  dread  none  of  the 
biblical  punishments  as  much  as  Karcth,  as  being  "  cut  off  "  from  my 
people.  History  teaches  that  the  synagogue  can  survive  any  amount 
of  persecution  and  any  number  of  threatened  schisms,  but  sects  de- 
cline spiritually  and  materially  and  disappear. 

If  the  Synod  should  become  a  blessing,  it  must  first  recognize  a 
standard  of  authority  and  this  can  be  no  other  than  the  Bible,  the 
Talmud  and  the  lessons  of  Jewish  history  as  to  the  vital  and  the 
essential  in  Judaism.  When,  for  instance,  history  testifies  that  Juda- 
ism was  prepared  to  suffer  martyrdom  rather  than  give  up  the  Sab- 
bath and  the  Abrahamic  rite,  we  know  that  their  abolition  would 
mean  death  to  Israel.  Or,  again,  when  history  teaches  that  Israel 
always  placed  the  center  of  gravity  of  Judaism  in  the  Pentateuch, 
maintaining  this  center  at  the  peril  of  its  life,  and  that  all  sects  hostile 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  141 

to  Judaism  were  ready  to  attack  it  first,  we  must  feel  that  to  shift 
the  center  would  be  to  hurl  us  outside  of  Judaism.  As  far  as  I  know, 
no  Jewish  Synod  of  early  times  representing  the  whole  of  Israel 
ever  presumed  to  abrogate  a  doctrine  or  to  abolish  a  single  law, 
biblical  or  rabbinical.  The  work  of  such  a  Synod  was  of  a  disci- 
plinary kind,  strengthening  the  Law  and  protecting  it.  After  great 
persecutions,  it  occasionally  introduced  new  ordinances  relating  to  the 
laws  of  evidence  and  similar  matters.  Sometimes  it  forbade  things 
for  which  there  was  no  distinct  authority  in  the  Law,  but  which  fell 
under  the  general  law  of  "  Holiness  "  and  "  Sanctification  of  the 
Name  of  God."  The  authority  was  vested  not  in  the  rabbis,  but  in 
the  Torah,  by  which  they  were  guided  in  all  their  actions.  It  was 
only  in  this  way  that  we  could  avoid  the  danger  of  sacerdotalism,  as 
the  rabbi  would  in  this  case  be  only  its  interpreter  and  executive 
officer ;  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Torah,  being  the  recognized 
authority  of  all  Jews,  those  coming  by  the  "  Power  of  the  Torah  " 
could  only  act  in  a  spirit  serving  to  strengthen  and  preserve  "  the 
union  of  Israel  and  its  religion  by  mutual  understanding  and  union." 

Respectfully, 

S.   SCHECHTER. 

NEW  YORK,  April  5,  1905. 


REPLIES  TO  LETTER  OF  COMMITTEE  (VIDE  PREFACE) 
ADDRESSED  TO  LAYMEN  FOR  VIEWS  ON  THE  AD- 
VISABILITY OF  ESTABLISHING  A  SYNOD. 

Philadelphia,  January  3,  1905. 

Dear  Sir:  In  reply  to  your  request  for  my  opinion  on  the  reports 
and  discussions  published  in  the  Year-Book  of  the  Central  Confer- 
ence of  American  Rabbis  for  the  year  1904,  on  the  subject  of  the 
establishment  of  a  Synod,  I  may  say  in  the  first  place,  that  I  can  see 
no  valid  reason  against  such  an  organization. 

The  reasons  suggested  for  such  a  Synod  at  the  end  of  the  report 
of  Rabbi  Enelow  seem  to  me  to  outweigh  all  the  opinions  expressed 
against  it.  The  union  of  two  such  bodies  as  the  Central  Conference 
and  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  would  result  in 
an  organization  fully  representative  of  Reform  Judaism.  Of  course, 
such  a  body  would  neither  have,  nor  attempt  to  exercise,  legislative 
or  judicial  functions,  nor  attempt  to  enforce  its  decrees.  All  this  is 
impossible  at  this  time.  The  resolutions  and  decisions  of  such  an 
organization  would  affect  individual  belief  and  practice  only  in  so 
far  as  the  essential  reasonableness  of  such  resolutions  and  decisions 
would  eventually  gain  acceptance  for  them  among  those  who  are 
represented  in  this  organization.  Such  an  organization  might  ex- 
press its  formal  opinion  upon  many  minor  questions  of  practice  and 
ritual  as  well  as  upon  Jewish  educational  problems  and  the  like,  and 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  its  influence  in  this  direction  would  be 
beneficial.  The  very  existence  of  such  an  organization  would  limit 
the  output  of  new  so-called  reforms  dictated  by  the  fancy  or  caprice 
of  individual  rabbis.  It  could  do  much  toward  cultivating  and  di- 
recting intelligent  public  opinion  and  thus  preventing  many  of  the 
"  improvements  "  that  have  heretofore  been  offered  in  the  name  of 
Reform  Judaism. 

But  the  great  importance  of  such  an  organization,  it  seems  to  me, 
will  be  found  in  a  much  broader  field  of  activity.  Many  questions 
now  exist  and  will  hereafter  arise  affecting  the  Jews  of  America  in 
a  broad  way.  These  are  not  questions  of  faith  or  ceremonial,  but 


144  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

questions  of  religious  liberty.  The  relation  of  the  Jew  to  his  en- 
vironment has  by  no  means  been  settled  in  this  country,  and  the 
existence  of  a  representative  and  important  body,  such  as  this  pro- 
posed Synod  might  be  made  to  become,  would  be  of  the  greatest 
use  in  many  an  emergency.  The  Jews  in  America  need  a  spokes- 
man of  recognized  authority  and  influence  to  take  the  place  of  the 
well-meaning,  but  often  misdirected,  volunteer  efforts  of  individuals. 
The  Reformed  Jews  are  now  a  minority  in  this  country,  and  will 
probably  continue  to  be  so  for  a  long  time,  but  they  are  an  import- 
ant minority.  The  bulk  of  the  communal  work  is  done  by  them  and 
their  voice  is  heard  more  frequently  than  that  of  the  Orthodox  or 
conservative.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  real  Orthodox  Jew  has  not 
yet  taken  his  proper  share  in  the  communal  work  outside  of  the 
Ghetto.  The  conservative  element  which  is  frequently  called  the 
Orthodox  to  distinguish  it  from  Reformed  Jews,  but  which  in  reality 
should  be  called  moderate  reform,  differs  in  some  important  respects 
from  the  so-called  reform  element,  and  this  difference  is  due  largely 
to  the  fact  that  the  reform  movement  in  America  has  not  been  di- 
rected or  influenced  by  an  authoritative  body  of  its  best  men.  Had 
such  an  organization  existed  during  the  last  fifty  years  there  would 
probably  have  been  very  little  difference  to-day  between  the  con- 
servative and  the  reformed  elements  among  American  Jews.  The 
fault  has  been  that  in  the  absence  of  intelligent  and  authoritative 
direction  the  vagaries  of  the  individual  rabbi  have  done  much  to 
bring  about  the  present  condition  of  anarchy  in  our  religious  life. 
The  reform  movement  seems  to  me  now  to  be  making  an  effort  to 
re-attach  the  broken  fibers  of  the  chain  of  historical  tradition,  broken 
in  many  a  hasty  and  ill-directed  individual  effort  to  hasten  the  mil- 
lennium by  reforming  Judaism  out  of  existence.  In  the  direction  of 
conservative  control  and  wise  progress  a  Synod  such  as  that  proposed 
can  do  great  work. 

The  time  may  come  when  Orthodox  Jews  will  likewise  organize 
themselves  and  establish  a  Synod  to  represent  them.  The  functions 
of  this  Synod  will  differ  materially  from  those  of  a  Synod  of  Re- 
formed Jews.  After  the  establishment  of  both  these  organizations 
the  final  result  may  be  a  union  of  all  Jews  in  this  country  in  one 
organization.  This  now  seems  impossible,  and  if  at  all  realizable 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  145 

will  be  so  only  in  the  distant  future.  For  the  present  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  Reform  Synod  will  be  a  step  in  the  right  direction,  con- 
sidering it  in  its  larger  aspect  as  well  as  in  its  more  immediate  results 
on  matters  of  lesser  importance. 

Yous  truly, 

D.  W.  AMRAM. 

Dear  Sir: — Soon  after  the  Louisville  meeting  of  the  Central  Con- 
ference of  American  Rabbis,  The  American  Israelite  invited  contri- 
butions from  lay  Jews  all  over  the  country  to  a  symposium  on  the 
subject  of  a  Synod  as  proposed  to  and  discussed  by  the  Conference. 
At  that  time  the  year  book  of  the  Conference,  which  has  since  been 
published,  was  not  available,  hence  those  who  wrote  for  The  Ameri- 
can Israelite  had  to  rely  upon  press  reports  for  information  of  what 
took  place  at  the  Conference.  I  complied  with  a  request  addressed 
to  me  for  a  contribution,  with  that  which  follows.  Therein  are  stated 
the  views  I  held  last  summer  and  no  reasons  have  been  presented 
to  my  mind  since,  to  make  me  change  them. 

My  attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  the  majority  report  of 
the  committee,  to  which  the  Synod-subject  was  referred,  and  which 
report  favors  the  formation  of  a  Synod,  nowhere  refers  to  an  amalga- 
mation of  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  and  the 
Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  for  Synodal  purposes,  and 
that,  therefore,  my  criticism  of  such  a  proposal  was  unjustified. 
However,  I  have  carefully  read  every  word  of  the  discussion  con- 
tained in  the  Year  Book,  since  published,  and  I  fail  to  find  that  any 
one,  either  in  committee  or  otherwise,  found  fault  with  the  plan  of 
organization  suggested  by'  Rev.  Dr.  H.  G.  Enelow,  Chairman  of 
the  Synod  Committee,  the  first  paragraph  of  which  is : — 

"  The  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  and  the  Union  of 
American  Hebrew  Congregations  shall  conjointly  form  the  American 
Jewish  Synod."  Furthermore,  the  report  of  the  President  of  the 
Conference  (Rev.  Dr.  Joseph  Krauskopf)  discusses  the  urgent  need 
of  a  Synod  and  makes  some  suggestions  concerning  its  formation 
but  defers  to  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Enelow  in  this  graceful  way :  "  The 
best  will  undoubtedly  be  given  us  by  our  colleague,  Dr.  Enelow,  who 
has  given  the  subject  much  study  and  research,  more  especially 
within  the  past  year." 


146  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

I  would  add  another  word.  My  contribution  appeared  in  The 
American  Israelite  within  the  week  preceding  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
and  I  have  it  upon  reliable  authority  that  quite  a  number  of  the  Jews 
of  Cincinnati,  whose  places  of  business  have  been  open  on  that  day  for 
years,  closed  them  in  1904.  Mention  is  made  of  this  circumstance 
because  it  seems  to  justify  by  belief,  expressed  in  the  appended 
article,  that  much  apparent  callousness  and  indifference  of  the  laity 
might  be  removed  by  direct  effort  on  the  part  of  the  Rabbis. 

It  is  strange  that  the  Committee  on  Synod  should  have  recom- 
mended to  the  Conference  a  plan  of  organization  which  provides 
that  "  The  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  -and  the  Union 
of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  shall  conjointly  form  the  Ameri- 
can Jewish  Synod,"  thereby  overlooking  the  important  fact  that  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregation's 
forbids  such  an  alliance.  And  this  oversight  is  the  more  surprising 
in  view  of  the  stress  which  the  committee  lays  on  the  history  of  the 
unsuccessful  attempt  of  the  sainted  Dr.  Wise  to  organize  a  Synod 
in  Cleveland  in  1855  and  crediting  that  failure  with  responsibility 
for  the  formation  of  "  the  two  separate  organizations  American 
Judaism  now  possesses,  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congrega- 
tions (1873)  and  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis 
(1899).  The  establishment  of  these  distinct  associations  really 
meant  the  subdivision  of  the  hypothetical  Synod." 

When  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  was  formed, 
the  Cleveland  experience  of  eighteen  years  before  was  not  forgotten ; 
'73  was  no  more  favorable  to  the  formation  of  a  Synod  than  was 
'55.  No  one  was  more  clever  in  reading  the  signs  of  the  times 
than  Dr.  Wise;  moreover,  he  never  deluded  himself.  So  when  the 
Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  was  in  contemplation, 
all  thought  of  making  it  a  Synod  in  name  or  in  fact  was  banished — 
not  dismissed  indirectly  or  inferentially — but  emphatically  and  con- 
clusively, as  any  one  who  reads  the  earliest  sections  of  the  Constitu- 
tions must  realize.  These  clauses  are  : 

The  objects  of  the  Union  are — 

A. — To  establish  and  maintain  institutions  for  instruction  in  the 
higher  branches  of  Hebrew  literature  and  Jewish  theology,  with  the 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  147 

necessary  preparatory  schools  in  such  cities  of  those  States  as  may 
hereafter  be  designated. 

B. — To  establish  relations  with  kindred  organizations  in  other 
parts  of  the  world,  for  the  relief  of  the  Jews  from  political  oppres- 
sion, and  for  rendering  them  such  aid  for  their  intellectual  elevation 
as  may  be  within  reach  of  this  Union. 

C.— To  promote  the  religious  instruction  of  the  young  by  the  train- 
ing of  competent  teachers,  and  generally  encourage  the  study  of  the 
Scriptures  and  of  the  tenets  and  history  of  Judaism. 

All  this,  however,  without  interfering  in  any  manner  whatsoever 
with  the  worship,  the  schools,  or  any  other  of  the  congregational 
institutions. 

I  have  italicized  the  words  to  which  attention  is  especially  called. 
Witnesses  there  are,  and  plenty  of  them,  now  in  life  who  were  active 
in  the  formation  of  the  Union,  who  know  that  unless  those  pregnant 
words  had  been  given  place  where  they  are,  the  efforts  to  organize  the 
Union  in  Cincinnati  would  have  been  only  a  repetition  of  the  failure 
to  form  a  Synod  in  Cleveland. 

The  truth  is  that  on  both  occasions  congregational  autonomy  was 
demanded  and  insisted  ori.  * 

It  will  not  do  to  say  that  the  Synod,  which  our  good  friends  of  the 
Conference  would  form,  does  not  intend  to  interfere  with  the  inde- 
pendence of  individual  congregations — that  was  doubtless  said  in 
1855,  and  has  been  said  whenever  a  Synod  has  been  proposed. 

Now  if,  fundamentally,  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congre- 
gations is  forbidden  from  interfering  in  any  manner  whatsoever  with 
the  worship,  the  schools,  or  any  other  of  the  congregational  institu- 
tions, surely  it  cannot  join  with  another  body  in  doing  the  pro- 
hibited act.  The  learned  chairman  of  the  committee  submitting 
the  report  to  the  Conference  frankly  says  :  "  Suppose  the  two  bodies 
(the  Union  and  the  Conference)  to  act  together  on  any  subject  of 
vital  concern,  and  you  have  a  Synod  in  the  historic  sense  of  the 
term."  Well,  it  was  a  Synod  that  was  frowned  upon  at  Cleveland, 
and  only  because  in  unmistakable  terms  the  intention  not  to  form  a 
Synod  was  expressed  in  the  first  paragraphs  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Union,  that  it  was  formed,  with  an  incalculable  amount  of 
resultant  good. 


148  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

The  legal  and  moral  impossibility  of  a  confederacy  of  the  Union 
of  American  Hebrew  Congregations  and  the  Central  Conference  of 
American  Rabbis,  for  the  purpose  of  forming  a  Synod,  is  so  manifest 
to  me  that  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  surprise  that  the  com- 
mittee, in  the  first  instance,  should  have  urged  such  an  alliance,  and, 
having  done  so,  that  some  other  member  of  the  Conference  should 
not  have  seen  the  inappropriateness  of  the  proposition. 

If  I  am  correct  in  the  above  conclusion,  then,  technically,  I  have 
fully  complied  with  the  terms  of  the  invitation  to  express  my  views 
on  the  Synod  question  proposed  at  the  Louisville  Conference,  with 
which  the  Israelite  has  honored  me.  But  I  assume  that  the  real 
desire  was  for  an  expression  of  opinion  from  the  viewpoint  of  the 
man  in  the  pew,  as  to  the  wisdom,  advisability,  and  desirability  of 
the  formation  of  a  Synod  composed  of  rabbis  and  laymen — in  short, 
a  discussion  of  the  spirit  of  the  Conference  proposal,  rather  than  the 
letter  thereof. 

The  request  for  my  views  came  to  me  several  weeks  ago,  and  my 
answer  is  not  the  creature  of  impetuosity.  Appreciating  the  im- 
portance of  the  proposition,  I  have  tried  to  look  it  squarely  in  the 
face,  and  to  thaj:  end  I  have  endeavored  to  secure  all  possible  light 
thereon.  Guided  by  the  information  available  to  me  and  such  experi- 
ence as  I  have  had  in  matters  Jewish  and  among  my  co-religionists, 
I  am  not  able  to  conclude  that  a  Jewish  Synod  in  this  country  will 
realize  the  expectations  of  those  who  advocate  its  formation,  and  if 
one  were  able  to  stop  with  this  remark  the  experiment  might  be 
worth  trying;  but,  as  I  shall  attempt  to  show  hereafter,  the  result 
of  failure  will  be  to  make  conditions  infinitely  worse,  instead  of 
bettering  them.  Failure  would  not  leave  us  where  we  began;  it 
would  thrust  us  into  confusion  worse  confounded. 

Let  us  admit  that  conditions  in  American  Jewry  are  deplorably 
chaotic ;  that  there  are  so  many  degrees  of  so-called  Reform  that  the 
most  conservative  bears  closer  resemblance  to  mild  orthodoxy  than 
to  the  ultra-radical. 

Let  us  concede  that  there  is  no  body  in  existence  that  has 
authority  to  announce  what  departures  may  be  made  from  ancient 
and  medieval  doctrines,  customs  and  practices,  without  forfeiting 
the  right  to  full  membership  in  the  household  of  Israel. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  149 

Let  us  grant  that  if  it  were  possible  to  convene  an  assemblage  of 
universally-conceded  competent  Jews — competent  in  the  widest 
sense,  so  competent  that  their  judgment  would  be  accepted  as  final- 
then  with  all  haste  there  should  be  submitted  to  them  the  questions 
which  perplex  and  divide  the  Reform  Jews  of  America. 

But  such  a  convention  admittedly  is  beyond  present  day  possi- 
bilities. 

The  committee  proposes  that  the  Synod  shall  be  nominally  the 
"  central  administrative  body  for  American  Judaism."  It  is  not 
actually  to  be  invested  with  the  first  attribute  thereof,  i.  e.,  authority 
to  execute  its  own  decrees.  Here  is  contradiction  ample  to  furnish 
food  for  contention  for  all  time. 

I  cannot  help  believing  that  a  mixed  Synod,  with  the  functions 
ascribed  by  the  committee,  would  be  calculated  to  further  embarrass 
present  circumstances.  If  I  judge  indications  aright,  the  opinions 
of  such  a  Synod  would  not  unify  rabbis  and  laymen  now  holding 
divergent  views.  To  the  extent  that  present  practices  were  perse- 
vered in  after  the  Synod  had  pronounced  against  them,  there  would 
exist  that  chaotic  state  which  all  deplore,  plus  the  element  of  disre- 
gard for  what  had  been  decided  by  duly  constituted  authority — in 
name,  at  least.  In  a  word,  we  would  then  suffer  from  chaos  and 
rebellion. 

Those,  who  differ  from  this  view  and  hold  that  opinions  of 
such  a  Synod  would  meet  with  respectful  acquiescence  regardless  of 
how  they  reversed  prevailing  habits  and  actions,  must  needs  attribute 
to  rabbis  and  laymen,  among  other  qualities,  these : 

Willingness  to  surrender  life-long  convictions. 

The  manly  courage  which  alone  prompts  the  maker  of  mistakes 
to  admit  them. 

The  sort  of  unselfishness  that  is  involved  in  yielding  up  pet  ideas. 

Readiness  to  concede  to  others  that  sincerity  of  purpose  claimed 
for  self. 

Preparedness  to  alter,  to  an  extent,  one's  mode  of  life  and  bear 
the  loss  incident  thereto. 

I  am  compelled  to  confess  that  I  cannot  discover  in  the  men  who 
occupy  pulpit  or  pew  that  standard  of  broadmindedness,  unselfishness, 
and  disinterestedness  which  furnishes  the  test  of  capacity  to  make 


150  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

these  concessions.  Of  course,  I  speak  of  men  as  they  are  found  in 
general.  Thank  God,  there  are  exceptions.  We  would  fare  badly 
if  there  were  not. 

Here  are  some  reasons  why  I  am  skeptical:  Suppose  that  the 
Synod  should  declare  that  the  hoary  seventh-day  Sabbath  is  Israel's 
Sabbath,  which  neither  time  nor  circumstances  may  change,  and 
further  should  declare  that  where  its  observance  is  not  possible  by 
reason  of  commercial  stress  a  week-day  service  with  Bible  lesson  or 
appropriate  sermon  may  be  given  with  perfect  propriety,  but  this 
shall  never  be  done  to  the  exclusion  of  the  regular  Sabbath  service — 
proclaiming  that  a  place  of  worship  is  not  a  Jewish  place  of  worship 
if  its  doors  are  sealed  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath — do  you  think  that 
such  a  pronouncement  would  revive  Sabbath  services  in  a  house  of 
prayer  that  had  denied  them  for  two  decades  ? 

Do  you  believe  that  the  rabbi  who  feels  it  an  honor  to  be  called  on 
to  marry  a  couple,  of  whom  one  by  birth  is  a  member  of  the  rabbi's 
faith  and  the  other  is  not,  would  cease  to  regard  the  request  as  an 
honor  should  the  Synod  set  its  stamp  of  disapproval  on  such  a  per- 
formance? My  word  for  it,  rabbis  and  others  who  make  advances 
(  ?)  such  as  these  are  not  apt  to  recall  them. 

Is  it  supposable  that  the  congregation  in  the  East  which  listened 
for  years  to  its  well-beloved  rabbi's  appeal  to  abolish  the  Oriental 
custom  of  covering  the  head  during  services,  and  repeatedly  refused 
to  comply,  lately  accepting  his  resignation  rather  than  make  the 
change — and  the  rabbi  is  a  member  of  the  Conference,  too — I 
repeat,  is  it  supposable  that  such  a  congregation  would  heed  the 
behest  of  a  Synod  to  do  the  thing  which  had  thus  been  rejected? 

It  will  require  more  than  a  dictum  to  change  the  trend  of  thought 
that  prevails  there. 

Had  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  done  nothing 
beyond  satisfying  the  great  need  of  Reform  congregations  for  a 
uniform  prayer-book,  that  act,  in  the  word  of  our  old  Haggadah, 
would  have  been  dayenu — sufficient — to  justify  its  existence.  One 
would  think  that  only  some  very  weighty  cause  would  prevent  this 
book  from  being  used  in  all  temples  spiritually  presided  over  by 
members  of  the  Conference,  under  whose  auspices  it  was  prepared 
and  is  published.  Yet  he  who  thus  reasons  would  be  in  error,  for  it 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  151 

is  not  so  used,  and  among  those  who  neglected  it  is  an  exalted  officer 
of  the  Conference,  who  does  not  use  the  Union  Prayer-book  in  his 
temple,  for  if  he  did  it  would  displace  a  ritual  prepared  by  himself. 
This  rabbi  is  a  firm  believer  in  a  Synod. 

Nor  do  I  see  in  the  lay  Jew  of  to-day  either  the  religious  fervor 
of  the  knowledge  of  his  faith  and  its  history  and  traditions  essential 
to  make  him  a  useful  member  of  a  body  designed  to  mould  the  con- 
duct of  the  Jewish  masses. 

Regretfully  do  I  notice,  in  place  of  zeal,  indifference,  and  instead 
of  anxiety  to  learn  what  it  is  that  has  kept  a  handful  of  people 
intact  these  countless  ages  among  the  nations,  great  and  small,  that 
have  come  and  gone — a  problem  which  all  the  world,  aside  from  the 
Jew,  is  intensely  interested  in  solving — I  observe  a  full-nigh  abso- 
lute callousness  upon  the  part  of  many  of  my  co-religionists.  Why 
this  should  be  so  I  do  not  know.  Maybe  it  is  because  most  of  the 
fathers  of  the  present  generation  lived  in  the  period  of  transition 
from  Orthodoxy  to  Reform,  when  the  old  was  discarded  and  the 
new  not  embraced,  or,  if  embraced  at  all,  only  with  half-heartedness, 
and  when  the  younger  set  came  to  the  fore  in  order  not  to  be  out- 
done by  their  elders  they  yielded  up  the  other  half  of  the  heartedness 
and  retained  none  of  it  for  themselves.  Now  too,  the  material 
tendencies  of  the  age  have  not  escaped  the  Jew  nor  left  him  scarless. 
He  has  prospered  enormously,  and  in  prosperity  religious  zeal  and 
fervor  are  never  found  as  in  times  of  severe  trial  and  adversity. 

But  whatever  the  causes  may  be,  the  lay  Jew,  as  I  view  him,  is  not 
fit  to  take  part  in  the  work  of  a  Synod  because  he  has  not  the 
necessary  knowledge  to  perform  the  service  intelligently,  and  besides 
too  frequently  his  course  of  life  from  a  Jewish  standpoint  utterly 
disqualifies  him  from  laying  down  a  standard  after  which  the 
Judaism  of  others  should  be  patterned. 

Am  I  too  severe  ?     Let  us  see. 

These  lines  are  written  within  a  fortnight  of  the  solemn  Day  of 
Atonement  and  I  am  thinking  of  it  and  its  observance  in  my  home 
city,  which  bears  the  reputation  of  being  above  the  average  in  the 
conservatism  of  its  Jewish  inhabitants. 

If  they  are  deficient  it  surely  is  not  because  they  have  not  had 
the  association,  inspiration,  and  guidance  of  as  able  religious  teachers 


152  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

and  leaders — in  the  past  and  in  the  present — as  this  land  has  ever 
known.  The  presumption,  therefore,  is  not  violent  that  the  laxity, 
which  prevails  there,  exists  elsewhere  in  at  least  like  degree. 

The  time  was,  and  that  within  the  memory  of  those  who  have  not 
yet  passed  the  meridian  of  their  lives,  when  not  a  single  place  of 
business  conducted  by  a  Jew  was  open  on  this  sacred  day  in  Cin- 
cinnati. Suddenly,  a  few  years  ago,  one  or  two  departed  from 
custom,  and  their  example,  like  a  contagious  disease,  has  bred 
defection  until  now  very  many  of  the  largest  establishments  owned 
and  conducted  by  Jews  are  in  as  full  operation  on  this  as  on  any 
ordinary  day.  And  there  are  lawyers,  too,  the  extent  of  whose 
practice  does  not  require  them  to  work  overtime,  who  sit  at  their 
desks  as  if  there  were  nothing  to  distinguish  this  from  the  general 
run  of  days. 

Who  are  these  men?  Are  they  Jewish  castaways,  black  sheep, 
ne'er-do-wells  that  are  to  be  found  in  every  community  ? 

By  no  means. 

Included  among  them  are  Temple  trustees,  Sabbath-school  Com- 
mitteemen,  pillars  of  Jewish  organizations  of  national  scope  which 
undertake  to  speak  and  act  for  American  Israel.  And  as  truly  as 
I  live,  if  a  Synod  were  created,  among  the  laymen  selected  therefor 
would  be  found  not  a  few  of  these  holy  day  desecrators. 

No  excuse  can  be  offered  for  their  conduct,  and  none  would  be 
given.  They  would  simply  say  that  they  consider  the  ancient 
injunctions  for  the  day  have  no  application  to  the  twentieth  century 
in  America. 

It  has  often  occurred  to  me  that  if  I  were  the  rabbi  of  a  Congre- 
gation, having  among  my  flock — and  especially  if  he  were  an  officer, 
trustee  or  Sabbath-school  committeeman — such  an  offender  as  I 
have  described,  realizing  that  I  had  failed  to  reach  him  from  the 
pulpit,  either  because  he  would  not  come  to  hear  me,  or  having 
heard,  heeded  not,  I  would  call  upon  him  and  urge  him  meditate 
upon  the  course  he  was  pursuing.  I  would  present  to  him  his 
shortcoming  with  due  gravity.  If  I  failed  to  move  him  by  argument 
and  reasoning,  from  the  depth  of  my  soul  I  would  pour  my  feelings 
into  his  soul  and  plead  with  him  to  reconsider  his  waywardness, 
and  I  would  try  to  make  him  realize  that  if  his  course  were  adopted 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  153 

generally  the  end  of  Judaism  had  come. '  I  would  direct  his  attention 
to  the  inconsistency  of  his  actively  supporting  a  distinctively  Jewish 
institution — a  house  of  prayer — and  his  living  in  diametrical  opposi- 
tion to  its  teachings.  I  would  appeal  to  him  by  the  thrilling  history 
of  our  ancestors,  who  at  certain  periods  fought,  bled,  and  died  on 
the  field  of  battle;  at  other  times  endured  persecution,  ostracism, 
and  banishment,  and  again  walked  willing  martyrs  to  the  stake  and 
faggot,  rather  than  forsake  the  Holy  Torah,  so  that  it  might  descend 
undefiled  to  him  and  to  me ;  and  if  thus  I  did  not  penetrate  his  Jewish 
feelings,  I  should  pursue  the  subject  in  a  personal  way,  saying  that 
his  flagrant  abuses  were  a  reflection  on  me  as  his  rabbi,  construable 
in  no  other  way  than  that  I  was  incapable  of  accomplishing  the  task 
performed  by  my  predecessors  for  thousands  of  years,  and  finally, 
all  else  availing  not,  I  would  speak  to  him  of  decency  and  manliness 
and  fair  play.  I  would  point  out  to  him  that  it  is  cowardly  to  take 
advantage  of  his  neighbor-tradesman  who  respects  the  day  and  gives 
his  Jewish  employes  an  opportunity  to  do  the  same  without  asking 
it  as  a  favor,  and  that  these  Jewish  merchants  were  entitled  to  at 
least  the  same  spirit  of  fellowship  at  his  hands  as  he  shows  his 
Christian  neighbor,  when  he  suspends  business  operations  on  days 
which  cannot  possibly  appeal  to  him,  only  because  a  kindly  feeling 
ought  to  prevail,  and  not  to  shut  down  business  on  such  days  would 
be  regarded  as  taking  unfair  advantage  of  those  who  do. 

If  I  were  a  rabbi  and  had  pursued  the  course  thus  briefly  outlined, 
and  success  crowned  my  endeavor,  I  should  be  supremely  happy ;  if 
I  failed  I  should  feel  that  to  the  extent  of  my  ability  I  had  done  my 
duty. 

In  a  preceding  paragraph  the  attempt  has  been  made  to  show  that 
the  lives  of  too  many  Jews  of  prominence  do  not  comport  with 
positions  which  they  now  hold  in  Jewish  institutions,  and  much  less 
does  their  conduct  justify  their  selection  as  members  of  a  Synod. 
Reference  has  likewise  been  made  to  the  lack  of  proper  equipment 
of  the  laity  to  fill  the  place.  Apropos  of  this  last  feature  and  as 
illustrating  that  lack  of  proper  equipment  does  not  necessarily  mean 
absence  of  scholarly  ability,  I  would  like  to  repeat  a  few  words  from 
the  learned  disquisition  prepared  for  this  symposium  by  Mr.  Israel 
H.  Peres,  which  appeared  in  the  Israelite  of  August  18.  He  said : 


154  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

"  The  creed  of  the  Jew  is  a  belief  in  God  and  His  all-wise  Providence, 
in  the  immortality  of  the  soul,  and  although  he  no  longer  waits  the 
coming  of  Christ  in  the  Orthodox  sense,  he  is  waiting  in  patience 
and  in  suffering  the  coming  of  Christ's  great  influence  upon  all  the 
peoples  of  the  earth,  when  they,  bending  under  His  love,  will  dwell 
together  in  peace  and  harmony  and  cease  to  hate  and  kill  each  other." 
Here  is  a  new  doctrine  in  Judaism  sure  enough.  "  Waiting  in 
patience,  and  in  suffering  the  coming  of  Christ's  great  influence  upon 
all  the  peoples  of  the  earth."  Of  course,  the  author  intended  this 
beautiful  sentiment  to  be  taken  as  a  figure  of  speech  merely,  but 
we  need  protection  against  such  flights  of  fancy.  Figurative  ex- 
pressions like  the  one  quoted  are  at  least  as  inappropriate  as  a  cross 
crowning  a  synagogue  would  be  misplaced,  even  though  it  were  put 
there  merely  to  satisfy  a  craving  for  the  beautiful  in  'architecture. 

I  have  written  of  rabbi  and  laymen  unrestrainedly — but  with  a 
heart  which  harbors  neither  bitterness  nor  despair — with  the  single 
purpose  of  presenting  reasons  why  I  do  not  believe  a  mixed  Synod 
at  this  time  would  subserve  the  cause  of  Judaism  in  America. 

While  not  responsive  to  the  terms  of  the  invitation  extended  by  the 
Israelite,  I  desire  to  say  that  as  a  layman  I  heartily  approve  the 
purpose  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  or  to  be  more 
precise,  I  believe  that  an  organization  composed  exclusively  of  rabbis, 
the  object  of  which  is  to  discuss  and  decide  questions  which  in  their 
opinion  are  of  importance  to  the  Jews  of  America,  ought  to  exist, 
and  is  better  qualified  to  advise  on  matters  of  religion  and  religious 
practice  than  a  body  part  clerical  and  part  lay  would  be,  for  the 
best  of  all  reasons,  that  the  subjects  treated  are  clearly  and  definitely 
within  the  domain  of  their  special  study  and  calling.  Moreover,  the 
estimate  that  should  properly  be  placed  on  a  minister's  words  and 
arguments  can  be  made  with  fairness  only  by  those  who  are 
thoroughly  versed  in  the  subject  matter  under  discussion — ministers 
and  not  laymen.  The  wisest  course,  that  could  be  pursued  by  laymen 
if  a  mixed  Synod  were  instituted,  would  be  to  adopt  the  views  of  the 
rabbis  in  whom  they  have  greatest  confidence — and  that  is  not  always 
a  just  way  to  act. 

The  main  if  not  the  sole  purpose  of  introducing  the  lay  element 
into  a  Synod  is  to  secure  practicality  in  its  proceedings.  As  to  this — 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  155 

let  the  rabbis  announce  what  is.  right;  what  is  Jewish;  and  the 
governing  powers  of  each  Congregation  will  decide  how  closely  the 
members  are  able  under  existing  conditions  to  conform  thereto,  and 
that  would  be  done  even  though  the  Synod  were  mixed — a  disclaimer 
having  been  entered  in  advance  that  there  is  the  slightest  intention  of 
encroaching  on  the  right  of  Congregational  self-government. 

Finally,  I  would  have  the  members  participate  in  the  work  of  the 
Conference  as  ministers  in  Israel  and  not  as  rabbis  filling  particular 
pulpits.  Emphatically  their  labor  will  be  better  done  if  undertaken 
in  behalf  of  American  Judaism  than  if  it  spells  the  desires  of  special 
communities.  I  would  have  them  meet  as  ministers  of  God,  on  a  plat- 
form as  broad  as  great  Judaism  itself,  unhampered  by  a  narrow 
thought  of  any  kind ;  with  heart  and  mind  and  soul  intent  on  serving 
the  Eternal  by  promulgating  in  their  pristine  purity  His  all-wise 
messages  to  mankind.  x 

ALFRED  M.  COHEN. 

f 

Little  Rock,  Ark.,  December  n,  1904. 

Dear  Doctor:  I  beg  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
the  23d  of  November,  answer  to  which  was  delayed  until  after  I 
received  the  book  you  referred  to.  In  reply  to  your  request  that  I 
give  you  my  views  upon  the  expediency  of  establishing  or  intro- 
ducing the  Synod,  I  have  to  say : 

A-Synod,  to  put  the  idea  into  different  words,  means  a  combina 
tion  of  experienced  and  discreet  men,  brought  together  for  tht 
purpose  of  settling  doctrines  or  disputes  relating  to  the  spiritual 
affairs  of  a  given  creed.  In  matters  of  creedal  welfare  so  far  as 
concerns  the  affairs  of  Reform  Judaism  in  the  United  States  in  a 
material  point  of  view,  a  combination  of  individuals  has  long  been 
current,  in  the  form  of  the  Union  of  Congregations  and  the  com- 
mittees of  that  union.  Hardly  any  one  will  deny  that  this  combina- 
tion has  been  beneficial  in  a  practical  point  of  view,  and  that  the 
benefits  so  resulting  would  have  been  impracticable  if  we  would  have 
depended  upon  the  discreet  activity  of  individuals  working  inde- 
pendently of  each  other,  however  able  such  individuals  may  have 
been.  The  Synod  will,  from  another  direction,  do  work  in  combi- 
nation, for  the  welfare  of  the  common  creed,  and  will  inform  that 


156  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

creed  with  characteristics  which  are  common,  and  are  not  the  eccen- 
tric productions  of  geniuses  acting  separately.  And  in  this  way  it 
will  supplement  the  work  of  the  Union. 

It  need  not  follow  that  dogmatism  and  crystallization  of  creed  will 
thereby  occur  to  a  prejudicial  extent.  We  have  arrived  at  a  stage 
of  social  progress  which,  so  far  as  Judaism  is  concerned,  leaves  little 
room  for  well-grounded  fear  of  reactionary  results  from  this,  or  any 
other  effective  source. 

If  to  combine  upon  an  increasing  and  widening  scale  is  the  almost 
universal  feature  of  the  modern  age,  in  material,  educational,  artis- 
tic and  moral  matters,  it  is  obvious  that  combination  must  be  of  as 
much,  if  not  more,  importance  in  matters  which  affect  our  spiritual 
good  and  effect  our  spiritual  regeneration  and  advancement. 

For  these  reasons,  and  for  the  reasons  set  forth  by  the  committee 
of  your  Conference  and  by  Dr.  Margolis,  in  a  recent  brochure,  I  favor 
the  Synod.  Yours  truly, 

MORRIS  M.  CORN. 

Indianapolis,  February  15,  1905. 

Do  we  want  a  Synod  in  Reform  Judasim? 

This  question  can  well  be  answered  in  the  negative  as  the  creation 
of  such  a  body  would  be  dangerous,  perhaps  fatal,  to  the  progress 
of  Judaism  in  this  country. 

During  the  past  fifty  years  Reform  Judaism  has  made  wonderful 
progress,  keeping  step  with  the  reform  spirit  of  the  country  and  of 
the  age.  To-day  a  new  condition  is  presenting  itself.  With  the 
influx  of  the  multitude  of  Jews  coming  to  our  country  to  escape  the 
tyranny  of  persecution,  we  are  confronted  with  the  problem  of  assim- 
ilating this  mass  of  orthodoxy,  and  while  teaching  these  people  how 
to  live  in  a  free  country,  to  also  teach  them  the  beauties  of  a  free 
religion. 

It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  one  of  the  beauties  of  our  religion 
was  the  fact  that  each  individual  was  at  liberty  to  worship  the  one 
God  in  such  a  manner  as  his  heart  and  his  conscience  dictated  with- 
out any  human  agency  trying  to  force  him  to  follow  along  a  narrow 
path. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  157 

Reform  Judaism  has  tried  to  get  away  from  obsolete  ceremonials 
and  has  taught  that  true  religion  consists  not  in  empty  forms  and 
ceremonies,  but  rather  in  an  effort  to  make  humanity  more  Godlike ; 
to  give  the  Jew  higher  ideals  of  life ;  to  make  him  feel  that  each 
man  has  a  mission  to  perform,  and  that  each  man  can  make  the  world 
better  for  having  lived. 

Then  why  should  we  take  a  step  backward  and  install  a  body  that 
would  sooner  or  later  take  upon  itself  to  try  and  direct  all  Jewish 
thought,  all  Jewish  life,  and  relegate  American  Judaism  back  to  the 
narrow  groove  of  ceremonials  and  dogma  that  has  so  often  been  its 
bane. 

The  American  Jew  is  one  of  independent  thought,  who,  while 
firmly  believing  in  the  cardinal  principles  of  Judaism,  will  not  allow 
a  human  agency  to  dictate  to  him  the  manner  in  which  he  shall 
worship  his  God. 

The  foreign  Jew,  who  is  now  coming  to  our  shores,  is  bound 
around  with  the  shackles  of  orthodoxy,  and  unless  we  can  offer  in 
exchange  a  religion  free  from  the  restraints  such  as  a  Synod  would 
doubtless  inject  into  Reform  Judaism,  will  either  remain  within  the 
tenets  of  his  orthodoxy,  or  seek  the  freedom  of  the  unchurched. 

The  question  that  confronts  American  Judaism  is  not  whether  the 
marriage  of  a  Christian  girl  to  a  Jew  entitles  her  upon  her  death  to 
sleep  in  a  Jewish  cemetery,  or  whether  a  Jew  dare  worship  his 
Creator  upon  any  of  the  seven  days  of  the  week,  but  rather  what 
shall  we  do  to  Americanize  this  foreign  element  that  is  now  coming 
to  these  shores,  both  as  to  its  citizenship  and  its  Judaism. 

This  can  be  done  in  both  cases  by  teaching  him  the  beauties  of 
freedom  in  all  things  so  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with  the  rights 
of  others. 

This  is  the  question  that  confronts  the  American  rabbinate  as 
well  as  the  laity,  and  it  is  to  this  that  we  should  bend  all  our  ener- 
gies, depending  upon  the  methods  that  have  enabled  the  American 
Jew  to  place  his  religion  upon  the  high  plane  it  occupies  before  the 
world  to-day,  ever  trying  to  take  a  step  forward,  relegating  to  the 
rear  the  things  that  in  the  past  were  tried  and  found  wanting. 

SOL.  S.  KISER. 


158  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD 

Dear  Sir:  I  feel  that  your  courteous  invitation,  to  one  who  is  not 
in  harmony  with  the  principles  represented  by  your  Conference,  to 
state  his  opinion  on  the  question  of  the  advisability  of  forming  a 
Synod,  demands  a  reply  even  at  the  risk  of  its  proving  to  be  an  un- 
satisfactory one. 

That  the  reform  party  in  Judaism  forms  a  separate  and  distinct 
branch  of  the  Keneseth  Yisrael  is  so  patent  that  it  must  be  recog- 
nized by  all.  However  much  we  may  regret  the  schism,  we  are 
bound  to  recognize  that  it  exists,  and  that  the  breach  cannot  be 
healed.  It  is  entirely  in  consonance  with  the  principles  I  believe  in, 
to  hope  that  the  development  of  reform  Judaism  may  proceed  on  an 
orderly  system  and  in  such  a  way  as  to  discourage  the  vagaries  and 
anarchy  of  extreme  individualism.  A  Synod  properly  constituted 
might  check  these  radical  tendencies  and  lead  to  a  systematic  evolu- 
tion. But  on  the  other  hand  it  might  give  these  tendencies  and 
practices  the  force  and  prestige  which  an  official  endorsement  con- 
veys. We  should  then  witness  the  sorry  spectacle  of  reform  Judaism 
authoritatively  sanctioning  Sunday  services,  which  are  un- Jewish  in 
spirit,  notwithstanding  the  declaration  of  the  Conference  at  its  last 
meeting  to  the  contrary ;  and  we  might  witness  the  official  confirma- 
tion of  equally  un- Jewish  doctrines  which  are  nowadays  frequently 
promulgated  from  Jewish  pulpits,  particularly  in  the  absurd  Christ- 
mas and  Easter  sermons  with  which  we  are  annually  favored  by 
radical  preachers. 

The  constitution  of  the  Synod  is  therefore  a  matter  of  vital  im- 
portance. The  personal  equation  cannot  be  ignored.  Not  all  minis- 
ters who  possess  a  rabbinical  diploma  are  qualified  to  pass  on  ques- 
tions of  Jewish  law,  custom  and  tradition.  The  number  of  those 
who  are  not  ministers  who  are  so  qualified  is  so  small  as  to  render 
the  indiscriminate  inclusion  of  such  an  element  in  a  Synod  a  pal- 
pable absurdity.  I  greatly  doubt  whether  the  decrees  of  any  Reform 
Synod  would  command  the  support  of  all  of  its  members.  If  it 
would  not,  its  creation  would  be  useless  labor.  A  number  of  the 
members  of  your  Conference,  on  their  own  initiative,  still  persist  in 
using  prayer-books  and  hymnals  arranged  by  themselves  and  others 
to  the  exclusion  of  those  which  are  authorized  by  the  Conference. 
What  likelihod  is  there  that  they  would  treat  the  decrees  of  a  Synod 
with  any  greater  respect? 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD  159 

If  a  Reform  Synod  had  been  created  at  the  inception  of  the  reform 
movement  it  would  have  had  a  basis  from  which  to  proceed.  After 
half  a  century  of  individualistic  chaos  where  can  such  a  basis  be 
found  ? 

I  have  been  requested  to  answer  a  question  and  instead  I  am 
asking  others.  But  they  are  questions  which  the  Conference  must 
ask  itself  in  order  that  it  may  arrive  at  a  safe  conclusion.  For  after 
all  the  Conference  and  not  those,  who  are,  like  myself  outside  its 
sphere  of  influence,  must  decide  the  question  according  to  its  idea 
of  what  is  best  for  the  religious  welfare  of  the  constituency  which 
its  members  represent.  Yours  very  truly, 

EPHRAIM  LEDERER, 

Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Cleveland,  Ohio,  December  24,  1904. 

My  Dear  Doctor:  Pardon  my  delay  in  replying  to  your  favor  of 
November  23,  asking  for  an  expression  as  to  the  advisability  and 
feasibility  of  establishing  a  Jewish  Synod' in  this  country.  In  reply 
would  state  that  I  do  not  believe  a  Synod  either  advisable  or  feasible. 
Not  feasible  because  neither  the  Union  of  American  Hebrew  Congre- 
gations, nor  the  United  Conference  of  American  Rabbis  (especially 
the  Conference)  have  a  real  harmony,  and  not  advisable  because  no 
authoritative  body  is  desired.  If  the  Synod  is  to  be  a  body  with 
authority,  it  is  not  to  be  desired  in  American  Israel ;  and  if  it  is  to 
be  a  body  without  authority,  it  is  unnecessary.  Better  that  the  Con- 
ference should  do  its  work  and  do  it  successfully  and  that  the  Union 
should  do  its  work  and  become  a  real  Union  of  Congregations. 

Very  truly  yours, 

M.  A.  MARKS. 

New  York,  January  20,  1905. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  have  read  over  the  reports  on  Synod  in  the 
Year-Book  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American  Rabbis,  which 
you  have  been  good  enough  to  send  me. 

It  is  not  quite  clear  to  me,  nor  have  I  been  able  to  get  sufficient 
information  as  to  this  in  the  report  and  discussions  on  the  subject, 


160  VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD. 

what  work  the  Synod  is  actully  to  perform.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
Reform  Jew  in  the  United  States  will  much  follow*  and  be  interested 
in  advice  given  by  an  ecclesiastical  body,  such  as  i  believe  is  in  the 
mind  of  the  proposers  of  a  permanent  Synod,  nor  would  the  Reform 
Jew  submit  to  laws  or  regulations  promulgated  by  aiSynod  or  any 
other  body.  Unfortunately  the  large  mass;; of  American  Israelites 
have  become  a  law  to  themselves,  doing  wihatiappears  right  in  their 
own  eyes  without  reference  to  the  iuaito  ocfirMerees^andtfci'aditiottj  and 
I  fear  this  state  of  affairs  could  nofobe  aflsfoeted  diroctlytfor  indirectly 
by  a  Synod,  such  as  is  suggested^  by  the  miejarityj  report  on  the 
subject.  •  iiija  •< 

I  feel,  therefore,  reluctantly  constrained  to  advise  against  the 
proposition  and  only  wish  I  could  bring  myself  to  a  different  view, 
for  the  tendency  to  disregard  celestial  authority,  which  so  generally 
prevails,  cannot  be  but  unfortuna4^,^T)the  future  of  Judaism. 

Believe  me,  with  much  respect,  yours  very  truly, 

jApds5  H.  Sa 

-      •          '<>.  rtei  sw  ai! 


Sacramento,  CaL,  December  19,  1904. 
:n  '.•.>(! 

Dear  Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  2$d  inst.,  also  a  cojjy  yof  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Central  Conference  of  American.  I^aj^is  for  1904 
came  duly  to  hand. 

Before  attempting  to  comply  with  your  request,  to  express  an 
opinion  as  to  the  advisability  and  feasibility  of  establishing  a  Jewish 
Synod  in  this  country,  I  carefully  read  the  proceedings  of  the  Con- 
ference, which  in  the  discussion  presents  strong  reasons  on  both 
sides  of  the  question.  I  endeavored  to  read  the  discussion  judicially 
with  a  view  of  reaching  a  conclusion  purely  on  the  merits  of  the 
reasons  presented  pro  and  con. 

The  frame  of  mind  in  which  the  discussion  left  me  was  that  the 
advocates  for  the  Synod  overestimate  its  importance  and  its  probable 
value  to  American  Judaism,  and  that  the  advocates  against  the  Synod 
overestimate  the  evil  likely  to  follow  its  creatioa 

To  my  mind,  the  proposed  Synod  is  likely  to  do  little  good  and 
little  harm.  If  never  brought  into  existence,  little  will  be  lost;  if 
created,  little  or  no  harm  will  follow. 


VIEWS  ON  THE  SYNOD.  161 

If  it  is  proposed  to  establish  an  ecclesiastical  body  in  this  country 
with  power  to  enforce  its  decrees,  it  would  then  be  important  for  the 
laity  to  have  a  representation  in  such  body,  so  that  its  views  might 
be  heard  and  its  interests  considered.  Were  it  possible  to  clothe 
such  body  with  power  to  enforce  its  decrees,  sooner  or  later  the  evil 
would  develop  of  these  decrees  becoming  tyrannic  and  despotic  in 
spirit,  and  all  the  possible  good  to  be  derived  from  a  central  body 
would  be  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  despotism  and  tyranny 
which  it  would  be  likely  to  bring  forth.  But,  fortunately,  it  is  im- 
possible, in  this  country,  to  give  such  a  body  the  power  to  enforce 
its  decisions  and  its  enactments;  and  hence,  all  that  it  can  hope  to 
accomplish  must  be  purely  recommendatory  in  character.  This 
being  so,  I  cannot  see  what  is  to  be  gained  by  watering  questions  on 
purely  spiritual  and  religious  issues  by  lay  opinions. 

Yours  truly, 

H.  WEINSTOCK. 


The  Bloch  Publishing  Company,  New  York,  is  the  Sole  Agent 
for  the  Publications  of  the  Central  Conference  of  American 
Rabbis. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWI 


LOAN  DEPT. 


on 


Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate 

• 

' 


MAY  2  7  1962 


MAR     9  1967  *  * 


MAK  L~t 
-LOAN  DbJ^T 


LD  2lA-50m-8,'61 
(Cl795slO)476B 


General  Library     . 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
PAT.  JAN.  21,  1908 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


